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

Re: [css-display] Unofficial draft of a Display spec ready for consumption

From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 11:16:14 +0200
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>,www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3974e4a6-f6fd-45ae-984f-5fca632beebc@email.android.com>


"Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

>Hey all!  I've been complaining for some time about the fact that
>'display' unnecessarily conflates "layout mode" with "role in parent's
>layout mode".  I've had mini-rants about this in Lists and Flexbox,
>and on the list a lot of times.  Further, authors have given
>consistent feedback over the years that indicates the conflation of
>'display:none' with the other values is confusing or hard to work with
>- in particular, they'd like to be able to toggle "none"-ness without
>disturbing the original 'display' value, or having to manually
>remember what the old value was.
>
>As such, I've written up a first draft of a proposal to split
>'display' into sub-properties:
><http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-display-3/>.  (It currently has the ED
>styling, but as I've indicated in the Status section, it's technically
>an Unofficial Draft until the WG approves it.)
> ...
>Thoughts?  Would the WG be okay with taking this on as a work item?
>It should be low-maintenance and pretty quick to advance, because I'm
>not trying to do very much with it.  In particular, I'm *not* wanting
>to mix any block-layout-related stuff into this draft - that should be
>done in an explicit Block Layout spec (Anton, your calling!).  That
>said, there's the potential for a little more work going on in this
>spec.  I have issues called out inline for additional things we could
>usefully put into the draft.

This idea has been floating around for a while, and does not seem to have any fundamental incompatibility with how layout engines work (at least the one I know of). I wouldn't be surprised if we ran into subtle issues when considering the combinations that weren't possible before, but I think it is absolutely worth a try.

Florian
Received on Sunday, 21 October 2012 09:16:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:01 GMT