W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2011

Re: Proposing content-hidden for background-image and img content

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 11:27:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDGLc57tdHEgDGOPuumK2BBMMsuK-bzJWmDwAvQNea3uA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote:
> On 9/8/2011 10:21 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Charles Pritchard<chuck@jumis.com>
>>  wrote:
>>> What about borrowing the current terminology from HTML5, and calling it:
>>> "content: transparent;"
>>> The transparent keyword would only apply to the element (not the pseudo
>>> element, which is already
>>> covered by inhibit and other flags).
>> What would content:transparent do?  In HTML "transparent" is just a
>> term for the semantics of some elements.
>> (We've also discussed a display:transparent that would be thematically
>> similar to HTML's notion of "transparent" - the element wouldn't
>> generate a box in the box tree (similar to display:none), but its
>> children still would.)
> It would maintain the content box sizing, while not-showing any elements.

That appears to be what visibility:hidden does.  Is there something
else that isn't addressed by this?

Received on Thursday, 8 September 2011 18:27:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:04 UTC