Re: 转：Re: [css-display] feedback on box-suppress

我第一次见到 suppress 这词…… 大家对这个词常见吗？
另外规范里对几种值的描述也基本在用 generate 和 layout 这两个词，他俩会不会比 suppress 要好
还有就是 show/hide/discard 这 3 个值的命名为什么要用动词呢？

layout-mode: shown | hidden | none 如何

Jinjiang

> 在 2015年6月25日，上午5:28，Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu（吕康豪） <lvkanghao@genomics.cn> 写道：
> 
> 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 Sunday, 28 June 2015 19:36:13 UTC