- From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu(吕康豪) <lvkanghao@genomics.cn>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 05:28:28 +0800
- To: W3C HTML5 中文興趣小組 <public-html-ig-zh@w3.org>
www-style 在讨论一个跟 'display: none' 会是一样重要的属性 'display- box'/'box-suppress'/'box-hiding-and-showing'(命名未决定)。[1][2] 我没读完整个讨论串就不整理了。我对这种东西的立场大体还是 “尽量不要用太难 的字”,比如说我觉得 “suppress” 就不行,而且也不容易拼对。 [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Jun/thread#msg253 [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Feb/thread#msg6 -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [css-display] feedback on box-suppress Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 08:43:21 +0000 Resent-From: www-style@w3.org Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 01:42:47 -0700 From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> CC: www-style@w3.org <www-style@w3.org> >> On Jun 20, 2015, at 3:09 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: >> >>> On 02/18/2015 06:04 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >>>> On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Mats Palmgren <mats@mozilla.com> wrote: >>>> On 09/27/2014 07:31 PM, fantasai wrote: >>>> We have a couple of key issues open that we would particularly like >>>> feedback on: >>>> >>>> A. Naming of the box-hiding-and-showing property. Please send us >>>> suggestions for improvement! (Or comments on what you like about >>>> the current name. We're pretty unsure atm, but want it to be >>>> easily understandable.) >>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/css-display-3/#box-suppress >>> >>> >>> 'box-suppress: hide' has multiple issues noted in the spec[1] so I wonder >>> if it would be better to move it to the next level of the spec? >>> 'box-suppress: show | discard' OTOH is straightforward to implement and >>> is something that authors have been asking for for a long time. >>> >>> My 2 cents on the naming: 'box-suppress: discard' sounds like a double >>> negation and I find it hard to understand what it does Sent from my iPad >>> the words. I would prefer a positive term instead, like >>> 'box-construction: normal | none' or 'box-features: all | none'. >>> ('none' is to associate it with 'display: none' to make it easy to >>> remember what it does). >> >> 'box-construction: normal | none' is a better name than the current, I >> think. fantasai, opinions? > > I don't think it's as user-friendly as the current list of keywords. > show | discard | hide > is pretty explicit about the differences among the keywords, whereas > normal | none really isn't self-evident at all. > > All in favor of a better property name, though! > (I don't have any good suggestions.) A) How about: display-box: none | show | hide This has the advantage of giving authors something very similar to what they are used to: 'display-box:none' is an easy to remember alternative to the familiar 'display:none'. And it is saying that there is no display of the box, which is easy to understand. Having it start with 'display-' also makes it seem more like it belongs in the family of 'display-*' properties. And it fits well with the second half of my proposal, for the shorthand: display: [<display-outside> [<display-inside> [<display-box> <display-list>?]?]?] | <legacy-values> B) If the order was enforced, as above, then we wouldn't have to remember which one used 'block | inline' and which one was supposed to include '-level' too. You could just write 'display: inline block none', and it would do the same as a 'display:none' that didn't forget that it was originally 'display:inline-block'. Easy peasy. And, once again, it would be easy on authors to just start writing 'display: inline block' instead of 'display: inline-block'. And 'display:block' and 'display:inline' wouldn't change at all from the legacy version, even though they would technically be shorthands now. C) Do we really need display-list as a separate property? Can't we just say that this: x { display: list-item } ...is equivalent to this: x { display: block } x::marker { display: inline } Thus, having a display of not 'none' on the ::marker would make it a list item. Bam. Now it gets 'disc' as the initial 'list-style-type' and a bullet as the marker content. This seems simpler me, and easier to mentally track what's going on, and how 'display: list-item' interacts with ::marker.
Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2015 21:28:58 UTC