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: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 12:52:40 -0700
Message-ID: <4FE8C188.4070708@inkedblade.net>
To: Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>
CC: www-style@w3.org
On 06/25/2012 06:13 AM, Florian Rivoal wrote:
> 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.

Given that introducing flow content into a flexbox is not a use case
we need or want to solve, I don't see that an opt-out is necessary.
The only reason I suggested B is that I don't like having CSS hard-code
behavior in terms of element names.

~fantasai
Received on Monday, 25 June 2012 19:53:09 GMT

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