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

Re: Proposing content-hidden for background-image and img content

From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 11:57:03 -0700
Message-Id: <6313A8D6-4CDE-44F6-8E2A-20B2546A16CC@jumis.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>




On Sep 8, 2011, at 11:27 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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


Sure, a shorthand for background / CSS images; creating a 100% width/height pseudo seems verbose... Could be ok though.
> 
Received on Thursday, 8 September 2011 18:57:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:44 GMT