W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2012

Re: [css3-flexbox] Fixing the "replaced elements may or may not be inline" issue

From: Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:13:18 +0200
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.wggm0gba4p7avi@localhost.localdomain>
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 14:21:26 +0200, Morten Stenshorne <mstensho@opera.com>  
wrote:

> I don't see how we could reasonably do B now, at least not with the
> 'display-inside' thing, since that property (AFAIK) is not part of any
> spec yet.

That's just a shortcut in this non normative text, meaning all the display  
types
that have would have block as their display inside if we introduced that  
property,
(block and inside-block. Anything else?)

> So, in my opinion, B causes more mess than it solves.
> Proposal A would be nice,

My general feeling is that A is a better default behavior than C.

My issue with proposal A is that there is no opt out. For the things that  
are display block by default, an author can set display to inline if  
that's better for him. But for these intended-to-be-replaced elements,  
there is no opt out. B's default behavior is the same as A, but with an  
opt out, and that's why I like it.

I am not that strongly attached to the way an opt out is offered, but I'd  
prefer having one, and basing it on display makes sense to me. Otherwise  
the situation we get into is that both <div> and <button> are flexbox  
items by default, but if you don't want that, for div you do  
div{display:inline} and for button you do button{automagic-flex:no}.  
That's quite inconsistent.

If we went with D, I'd be more comfortable with an opt out based on  
something else than display, since it would work consistently. But since  
it seems we can make the opt out be the display property, I am not sure we  
should introduce another property just for this.

  - Florian
Received on Monday, 25 June 2012 13:13:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:55 GMT