W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2010

Re: Splitting 'display'

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 19:04:46 -0700
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <54AC3427-CB89-4DA2-950A-C9A5DED0EE51@apple.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>

On Apr 16, 2010, at 11:10 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

> In preparation for a mild rewrite of Flexbox to make the concepts
> expressed in it map to a cleaner model, I've gone ahead and revived
> the idea of "display" as a shorthand.  This is *long* overdue.  I took
> some text from an older WD of the Box module.
>
> The only significant changes are that I'm using more straightforward
> names for the sub-properties (display-inside and display-outside),
> handle the table and ruby values slightly differently (in what I think
> is a cleaner way), and have changed the names of the block-inside and
> inline-inside values to "static" and "text" respectively.

The "static" and "text" names don't appeal to me:

1) Block and inline are fairly well known terms for the inside layout  
of blocks and inlines respectively.
2) The relevance of "static" and "text" is not obvious. What's static  
about a block? Its inside contents can certainly change. What's more  
textual about the contents of an inline? A block can certainly contain  
only text, and an inline can contain only non-text.

Regards,
Maciej
Received on Sunday, 18 April 2010 02:05:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:26 GMT