W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2013

RE: [css-display] Naming a "display:none"-ness switch.

From: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 23:06:02 +0100
Message-ID: <DUB002-W2246E0D40BFFEAF037C92DA5FB0@phx.gbl>
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
> This will correctly hide the element regardless of what the author
> sets 'display' to, while still allowing the author full control over
> the way that [hidden] renders (for example, using a transition or
> animation to hide the element instead of simply hiding it
> immediately).

I'm wondering why display-outside & step transitions wouldn't do the trick in this case. Would you mind clarifying it to me?

direction1 {
    from {
        display-outside: block;
        animation-transition[display-outside]: steps(1, at end);
        display-inside: grid;
        opacity: 1;
    }
    
    to {
        display-outside: none; 
        opacity: 0;
    }
}

direction2 {
    from {
        display-outside: none;
        animation-transition[display-outside]: steps(1, at start);
        opacity: 0;
    }
    
    to {
        display-outside: block;
        opacity: 1;
    }
}

Since display-inside isn't modified, the inner layout shouldn't be impacted (or it would be anyway because the inner layout depends of the whole context).

Is that right? Or do you have something else in mind? 		 	   		  
Received on Tuesday, 5 March 2013 22:06:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:06 GMT