W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2015

Re: [css-flexbox] few change/addition prepositions

From: Robert Koritnik <robert.koritnik@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 12:46:14 +0000
Message-ID: <CABJN8dc9e0pUf4fY+Skw4k+qgHFL9M1pziv-MNc9CDi1zeRVyQ@mail.gmail.com> (sfid-20150212_124620_690204_75FEF9B6)
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed Feb 11 2015 at 10:30:19 PM Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
wrote:

Thanks for your time for clearing few things up.

flex-direction is defined with "logical" axis names (as opposed to
> "physical" ones) on purpose; generally, if you want a "row" flexbox
> you want it to flow in the same direction as text.  That's horizontal
> on English pages, but vertical on, for example, Japanese pages.
>
> The direction within the axis is also relative to the language of the
> page (more precisely, to the 'writing-mode' of the flex container) -
> in English "row" causes items to flow left-to-right, same as text, but
> in an Arabic page the same value flows right-to-left, same as Arabic
> text.
>

That makes perfect sense
​ and horizontal/vertical wouldn't work. But the same reason why
horizontal/vertical can't work is why row/column can't either. They also
imply certain direction. I'm no Japanese speaker, but shouldn't
​"r
ow
​"​ and "column"
in Japanese mean
​
something unrelated to writing direction and the same as in latin writing
world?

It would therefore be better to name these values something along how they
work. W3C draft spec
<http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-flexbox/#flex-direction-property>
​already implies better alternatives that mean the same regardless of
writing directionality. These two values could be *"inline"* or *"normal"*
and *"block"* (with their reverse alternatives).


> I'm unsure what you're referring to with this example.
>

​Doesn't matter as your previous explanation makes it obsolete.
​


> > *2. Additional value for justify-content property*
> > I'm missing an additional value of stretch, to make individual unwrapped
> set
> > of item
> ​s​
> fill the whole main-axis width without any space between them
> ​​
> .
>
> This is what the 'flex' property is for.
>

That's right.
flex-grow
and
flex-shrink
can actually be used to achieve desired results. Although not obvious as
they're related to item sizing and not justification.
​


> Better control of flex wrapping is planned, and will show up in either
> the CSS Break specification or Flexbox Level 2.
>

​Right. Is there a draft of these anywhere?​


​Kind regards,
Robert Koritnik​
Received on Friday, 13 February 2015 17:50:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:52:01 UTC