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

Re: [css3-flexbox] visibility:collapse on flexbox items

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 15:32:15 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCYnikMaSiP+joLy-_NBiPHeWfnTjF-aRmU1Mzw3s5jfg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Ojan Vafai <ojan@google.com>
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>> From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, September 23, 2011 3:11 PM
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Alex Mogilevsky
>>> <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>> > 2009 spec was specific about effect of visibility:collapse
>>> >  http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-css3-flexbox-20090723/#displayorder
>>> > (removing the items completely, as in tables). All current
>>> > implementations do that, so the same text should probably appear in > the new spec.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure it's clear, actually.  Is the collapsed item taken into
>>> account when dealing with "flex-pack:justify"?
>>>
>>> (I have no problem with adding similar text.)
>>
>> It seems that if "visibility:collapse" is targeting the same kind of dynamic scenarios as in tables, it should behave exactly as "display:none" in flexbox (no extra spacing in justify). It doesn't seem super useful then - but it does make it easier to show/hide items without wiping their 'display' property (your favorite inner/outer display issue).
>
> Seems fine to me.  I'll make the change shortly.

I've made the change.  (I have an interesting definition of "shortly"
sometimes.)

~TJ
Received on Friday, 30 September 2011 22:33:03 GMT

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