- From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 16:35:48 -0700
- To: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
- CC: Giovanni Campagna <scampa.giovanni@gmail.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
David Hyatt wrote:
> On Apr 11, 2009, at 3:53 PM, Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
>
>>
>>> 4 The property for deciding how an element lays out its children is
>>> "display-model". We don't need a new "flow" property for
>>> that.[CSS3BOX]
>>
>> We already sang "Sic transit gloria mundi..." to the 'display-model'.
>> It was integrated with the 'display' long time ago.
>>
>> I too think that that was wrong but we are here already.
>
> I don't think we are there already. I personally hate the split of
> display into multiple properties, and no browser has implemented it.
>
> dave
> (hyatt@apple.com)
>
>
Sorry I meant that we already have the 'display' in its current form
and I do not think it is even feasible to change it at this point.
That is why the 'flow' proposal is trying to be indifferent to the
'display' as much as possible. So far I see no conflicts with the 'flow'
and 'display'.
And yet, the 'flow' greatly reduces need of display:table and friends.
I think that in reality display:table can be safely deprecated and
replaced by flow:table with the definition that this layout method
manages standard (for html) layout of <tr>/<td> elements.
I mean that if someone needs table alike placement then they can use one
of the flow methods leaving <table> strictly for the tabular data
representation. So intrinsic style sheet that defines default styles
of HTML elements may have something like:
table
{
display:block;
flow:table;
}
rather than that bunch of artificial display:table-row, cell, etc.
--
Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Saturday, 11 April 2009 23:36:27 UTC