Re: Splitting 'display'

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 7:36 PM
To: "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com>
Cc: "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Splitting 'display'

> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Andrew Fedoniouk
> <news@terrainformatica.com> wrote:
>> Tab, are you trying to re-introduce display-model and display-role from
>> here: http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-css3-box-20021024/#L706
>>
>> ?
>
> Yes, precisely.  That's the draft that I took some text from, actually.
>

If so then I don't think any change in 'display' will have any chance.
Legacy reasons and so on.

In my opinion the 'flow' as a definition of layout manager of some
[block] container - definition of the way how it layouts its children
has significantly more chances.

'flow' is orthogonal to 'display' in the sense that only
'block', 'inline-block', 'table-cell' and that strange 'list-item' may have 
'flow'
defined and meaningfully interpreted. For all other values of the display
property computed value of the 'flow' is 'auto' (default).

In general 'flow' makes sense only for block elements - those that
establish box context and so have width and height.

In my opinion addition of table-*** values to the display was strategic
mistake. They do not create any reasonable solutions - just problems.
I believe that the flow with its values: vertical , horizontal , 
vertical-wrap ,
horizontal-wrap and "template" will make table-*** stuff obsolete.
If CSS is ought to define <table> as it is now then it will be enough
to add flow: table value with wording: "HTML table layout manager -
replaces TR,TD,TH elements using HTML table rules".

-- 
Andrew Fedoniouk

http://terrainformatica.com

Received on Saturday, 17 April 2010 03:47:15 UTC