- From: François REMY via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 17:58:50 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Hey, I didn't object to today's resolution that we should probably try to harmonize "box-suppress" and "display" but I am still not convinced either that what we want is any different from what "visibility: collapse" does provide for tables internal elements already. Scanning through this thread yields ```display-visibility``` as a proposed property name and ```collapse``` as a proposed value name. So, to summarize: - We have ```visibility: collapse``` that already does pretty much what we want on a subset of display types (the element still generates boxes, but those are not really used for layout and are not rendered) - We have a proposal to add ```display-visibility: collapse``` (or similar) that does pretty much the same thing on all display types (the element still generates boxes, but those are not at all used for layout and are not rendered) - Using display as a shorthand has implications as user agents usually serialize shorthands into longhands in the cssom, and may break websites. Many assume javascript code assume display to be none or not none, but will chuckle on combinations that a new longhand would make possible. It will be difficult for years not to include css/js from css frameworks that use display improperly if you want to use ```display-visibility``` . As a result, I am still not quite sure why we would not just follow the unification route where we just allow ```visibility:collapse``` to apply on non-table elements with the newly suggested behavior. I guess this is one of the things we can discuss irl this Friday when you come by the office. -- GitHub Notification of comment by FremyCompany Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/343#issuecomment-238949910 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 10 August 2016 17:58:57 UTC