W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2012

RE: [css3-flexbox] component properties of flex

From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 23:56:29 +0000
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2C86A15F63CD734EB1D846A0BA4E0FC80E79AFE5@CH1PRD0310MB381.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
± From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net] 
± Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 4:38 PM
± On 04/25/2012 04:29 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
± > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Alex Mogilevsky<alexmog@microsoft.com>  wrote:
± >> We have an issue to resolve for dealing with flex values in DOM:
± >> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16145

± >>
± >> I think the most reasonable way to do it is to actually have 
± >> component
± >> properties:
± >
± > I'm fine with component properties.  I'm partial to the 
± > "flex-grow/shrink" pair, as that's what I used in my old blog draft.
± > I also like "flex-base".
± I'd prefer 'flex-basis' here.

I like latin words too. One way to choose one or the other is to use it in a sentence. 

	"If the item has a definite base length, that's the hypothetical size"


	"If the item has a definite flex basis, that's the hypothetical size"

If "basis" or "flex basis" is the term that we will use in the spec instead of "preferred size", the property should be 'flex-basis'.

If we prefer the term "base" or "base size" or "base length" in prose, the property should be 'flex-base'.

I can live with either.


Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 23:57:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:15 UTC