W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2011

RE: [css3-regions] content:flow-from() vs. flow-from

From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 23:19:19 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D51C9E849DDD0D4EA38C2E5398569284120EC75C@TK5EX14MBXC218.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
± From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] 
± Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 4:13 PM
± To: Alex Mogilevsky
± 
± On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote:
± > Option 3:
± >        1) Introduce "display-inside" property (defines layout behavior inside element: 
± "display:inline-table" == "display:inline-block; display-inside:table").
± >        2) Element becomes a region when it has "display-inside:region"
± >        3) Generated content does not apply to regions
± >        4) Flow selection: 'flow-from' or 'content:flow-from()' - with this option either 
± way works, these properties no longer define region, they are consumed by the region and it 
± can set its own rules.
± 
± I definitely prefer this option.  (Though the complement to display-inside should be 
± display-outside, since 'display' should be a
± shorthand.)

I agree, 'display' should be a shorthand.

Somebody (Tantek?) have mentioned "display-role" or "layout-role". 

We have also used 'content-type' and 'layout-placement' internally to describe these concepts.
Received on Wednesday, 10 August 2011 23:19:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:43 GMT