- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 11:27:02 -0700
- To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote: > On 9/8/2011 10:21 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Charles Pritchard<chuck@jumis.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> What about borrowing the current terminology from HTML5, and calling it: >>> "content: transparent;" >>> The transparent keyword would only apply to the element (not the pseudo >>> element, which is already >>> covered by inhibit and other flags). >> >> What would content:transparent do? In HTML "transparent" is just a >> term for the semantics of some elements. >> >> (We've also discussed a display:transparent that would be thematically >> similar to HTML's notion of "transparent" - the element wouldn't >> generate a box in the box tree (similar to display:none), but its >> children still would.) > > It would maintain the content box sizing, while not-showing any elements. That appears to be what visibility:hidden does. Is there something else that isn't addressed by this? ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 8 September 2011 18:27:49 UTC