- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 16:58:31 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 10/03/2011 02:36 PM, Ojan Vafai 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). I think you missed Andrew's point. Nevermind the syntax, the *behavior* of "display: none" is not actually what you'd want for dynamic show/hide behavior. Because it takes the element entirely out of flow, the hidden element no longer influences layout at all. Which means that by showing/hiding the element, you are adding/removing its influence on the parent's intrinsic sizes, and potentially thus also its size--this is not always what you want. Another side effect is adding/removing its influence on list counters, etc. We don't actually have the right capabilities in CSS to do good dynamic showing/hiding of elements. Visibility: collapse was supposed to do this, but it only works for tables and then only when there are no rowspans/colspans involved. See also the discussion at this thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Feb/0130.html ~fantasai
Received on Monday, 3 October 2011 23:59:02 UTC