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: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:42:08 +0200
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.wgh44iae4p7avi@localhost.localdomain>
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 21:52:40 +0200, fantasai  
<fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:

> 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.

That would push me toward proposal D then. In A, you do have an opt out,  
but
only for some elements, and that's just weird.

  - Florian
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2012 08:42:40 GMT

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