- From: Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 11:57:03 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Sep 8, 2011, at 11:27 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > 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? > > ~TJ Sure, a shorthand for background / CSS images; creating a 100% width/height pseudo seems verbose... Could be ok though. >
Received on Thursday, 8 September 2011 18:57:41 UTC