- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2011 14:59:29 -0700
- To: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
- Cc: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote:
> Now that I understand the behavior of visibility:collapse in tables, I don't
> think we should extend the behavior elsewhere. We should just have
> visibility:collapse work the same way on flexboxes as it does elsewhere
> (i.e. like visibility:hidden). Otherwise, visibility:collapse becomes this
> complicated beast that noone can use because the rules are different for
> each display type.
> I agree with Alex that we need a way to show/hide items without wiping their
> display property, but we already have that with the "hidden" attribute (see
> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#hidden-elements).
Yeah, after talking with Hixie and Ojan about this, it seems like just
leaning on HTML's @hidden would be sufficient to solve the "hide an
item without wiping the display value" problem. @hidden is just
implemented as "[hidden] { display: none; }" in the UA stylesheet.
Other languages can solve the problem similarly with their own
attribute/class/whatever. We can then continue to work on splitting
'display' apart, which allows more solutions to this problem.
So, I'm inclined to revert the change I made a bit ago, and have
visibility:collapse go back to acting like visibility:hidden on
flexbox items, like everything else works.
~TJ
Received on Monday, 3 October 2011 22:00:17 UTC