- From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:47:39 +0000
- To: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
± From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Øyvind ± Stenhaug ± Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:10 AM ± ± On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:16:08 +0200, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote: ± ± > Hot about this: ± > ± > position: inline | block | absolute | fixed | table-cell | table-row ± > | list-item | ... ± > layout: text | list | table | table-row | flexbox | grid | replaced* ± > | region ± > ± > (*) replaced should probably not be a generic replace, it should be ± > every specific kind - image | button | iframe | mathml | ... ± > ± > (you may have noticed that I didn't put "position:relative" in the list. ± > It doesn't belong there. Unfortunately it is a "position" ± > historically, will have to be included, but really it should have been ± > a separate ± > property) ± ± But how do you differentiate between a relpos inline and a relpos block? This is not really a proposal, this is an idea that is brought up with the purpose of looking at property naming in perspective. The concepts referred to by 'display-outside' and 'display-inside' are very different, they may or may not have related names, and they also may overlap with existing properties. As for "position:relative", in this hypothetical situation (of defining display and positioning properties as if they didn't exist yet) I would keep it separate, as it isn't really specifying a position, it is an offset from a position that is determined before it applies. Perhaps something like this would work better for relative positioning: position-offset: <length> <length>? (the two values are offsets for 'start' and 'before'; somewhat similar to http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-gcpm/#the-float-offset-property) Alex
Received on Thursday, 11 August 2011 13:48:07 UTC