W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > August 2021

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-content] Implementing content:none on elements is not web-compatible (#6503)

From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2021 16:11:37 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-896958909-1628698295-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
The CSS Working Group just discussed `content:none`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: spec content:none as having no effect on elements`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;fantasai> Topic: content:none<br>
&lt;Rossen_> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6503<br>
&lt;fantasai> emilio: We implemented it, broke tons of sites<br>
&lt;fantasai> emilio: We should at least fix the spec to say that content:none has no effect on non-pseudo elements<br>
&lt;fantasai> emilio: It's a bummer because 'content' does have effects on some elements<br>
&lt;fantasai> emilio: We could add another value to the content property to represent that behavior<br>
&lt;fantasai> Rossen_: how broken?<br>
&lt;fantasai> emilio: content:none suppresses boxes for children of element<br>
&lt;fantasai> emilio: sites were specifying it on a bunch of stuff using e.g. * { content:none; }<br>
&lt;fantasai> emilio: initial value is normal<br>
&lt;fantasai> florian: I wouldn't have expected it to be Web-compatible, has been a no-op for a long time, so mistakenly applied in lots of places<br>
&lt;fantasai> emilio: any objection to change the spec to match reality?<br>
&lt;fantasai> emilio: other question is should we add a new value<br>
&lt;Rossen_> q?<br>
&lt;Rossen_> ack fantasai<br>
&lt;florian> fantasai: we should spec it<br>
&lt;florian> fantasai: if we need a new keyword, I'd suggest "empty"<br>
&lt;florian> fantasai: not too sure what the use cases are though<br>
&lt;fantasai> Rossen_: any other comments?<br>
&lt;fantasai> emilio: not sure we should even add the keyword, we implemented for completeness<br>
&lt;rachelandrew> it would be interesting to see if authors have use cases<br>
&lt;fantasai> ??: I think there could be some interesting cases for having the box but not its contents<br>
&lt;bradk> That was me<br>
&lt;astearns> s/??/bradk/<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> we can just leave the discussion out of this issue for now, and open a fresh issue arguing for adding this new keyword<br>
&lt;fantasai> emilio: also interesting question about interaction with content-visibility:hidden<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> no reason to tie it to this discussion<br>
&lt;astearns> +1 to new issue for use cases<br>
&lt;fantasai> bradk: maybe ask authors<br>
&lt;emilio> +1<br>
&lt;fantasai> Rossen_: ok, let's deal with that in a separate issue<br>
&lt;fantasai> RESOLVED: spec content:none as having no effect on elements<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6503#issuecomment-896958909 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 11 August 2021 16:11:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:42:42 UTC