- From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 12:41:04 -0700
- To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: "Markus Jonsson" <carnaby@passagen.se>, <www-style@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu> To: "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com> Cc: "Markus Jonsson" <carnaby@passagen.se>; <www-style@w3.org> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 11:28 AM Subject: Re: Should 'display: none' be handled by 'visibility'? > Andrew Fedoniouk wrote: >> I think that it makes sense to redefine rendering behavior of visibility: >> collapse >> and give it exactly the same meaning as display:none. > > Except that they have different effects, even on internal table elements. > Other than that minor detail, no problem. > > Note that the ostensible use case of visibility:collapse on internal table > elements _is_ a use case we want to meet and is not really covered by > display:none. > > -Boris Hi, Boris. Let it be special meaning for visibility:collapse in tables. I even think that p { visibility: collapse } should behave this way too - such a paragraph in normal (static) flow shall participate in computation of min/max-intrinsic widths of its container but its height will collapse. (if we will come up with flow:horizontal one day then width will collapse instead of height) This makes a perfect sence for me: display:none is used primarily for dynamic effects - collapsing of elements per se. Andrew Fedoniouk. http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Friday, 27 July 2007 19:41:43 UTC