Re: [css3-flexbox] ED updated: algorithms and 'flex' property

On 04/25/2012 05:05 AM, Alex Mogilevsky wrote:
> ± From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net]
> ± Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 9:21 AM
> ±
> ± On 04/23/2012 02:32 AM, Anton Prowse wrote:
> ±>  On 29/02/2012 03:58, Alex Mogilevsky wrote:
> ±>>
> ±>>  With flex, preferred size is the starting point of flexing, often
> ±>>  zero, but that zero is by no means the size the items prefer to get.
> ±>
> ±>  Perhaps the term "preferred size" is not optimal. What about "initial
> ±>  size"? I accept, though, that there's potential for confusion with
> ±>  "initial value of the main/cross size property". Still, 'flex-
> ± initial-size' makes more sense to me than 'flex-preferred-size' since,
> ± as Alex says, 0px unlikely to be the size that the items prefer to get!
> ±
> ± Perhaps call it the 'size basis'? Since it the basis of the flexed
> ± size.
>
> I like 'flex-size-basis' or 'flex-base-size' more than 'flex-preferred-size'.
>
> Also, it is not a size, it is a length, that confuses pretty much everybody looking at the names for the first time. 'flex-base-length' would be much more appropriate.
>
> It would be even better if a single word could describe the concept of basis for flexing...
>
> How about 'flex-base' ? or 'flex-basis'? 'origin' would make sense but confusing too.
>
> Maybe 'flex-root' ?

If we wanted a property for it, I'd suggest flex-basis, yes. It's the basis for flexing. :)

~fantasai

Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 16:26:16 UTC