W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2007

Re: Should 'display: none' be handled by 'visibility'?

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 12:41:04 -0700
Message-ID: <001801c7d086$1850ebe0$f502000a@internal.toppro.net>
To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: "Markus Jonsson" <carnaby@passagen.se>, <www-style@w3.org>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
To: "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com>
Cc: "Markus Jonsson" <carnaby@passagen.se>; <www-style@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: Should 'display: none' be handled by 'visibility'?


> Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
>> I think that it makes sense to redefine rendering behavior of visibility: 
>> collapse
>> and give it exactly the same meaning as display:none.
>
> Except that they have different effects, even on internal table elements. 
> Other than that minor detail, no problem.
>
> Note that the ostensible use case of visibility:collapse on internal table 
> elements _is_ a use case we want to meet and is not really covered by 
> display:none.
>
> -Boris

Hi, Boris.

Let it be special meaning for visibility:collapse in tables.

I even think that

p { visibility: collapse }

should behave this way too - such a paragraph in normal (static)  flow
shall participate in computation of  min/max-intrinsic widths of its
container but its height will collapse.
(if we will come up with flow:horizontal one day then width
will collapse instead of height)

This makes a perfect sence for me: display:none is used primarily
for dynamic effects - collapsing of elements per se.

Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Friday, 27 July 2007 19:41:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:51 GMT