Re: "display:transparent" or "display:nobox" (RE: thoughts on page templates)

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>From: Alex Mogilevsky
>>Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 10:53 AM
>>
>>>> 1.1. ‘flow-into’: element vs. content
>>>>
>>>> The issue of nested containers in regions (“region-type:box” vs.
>>>> “region-type:slot”) can also be addressed by named flow source
>>>> element sending its content to the flow, e.g. like this:
>>>
>>>I like the idea of having a display value that takes the element out of
>>>the box tree but leaves its children.  This was previous suggested by
>>>me (and maybe others? I forget now) as "display: transparent".
>>
>>Interesting. "display:noblock" maybe? That would solve box/slot difference
>>too.
>
> How about "display:nobox" ?
>
> That would mean "for the purposes of layout, ignore the element and consider its child nodes to be direct children of its parent node"
>
> Would it be intuitive that 'nobox' means that?
>
> (display:nonode" would be another naming option).
>
> It think it is pretty cool. Not only this allows to create placeholder regions for stuff sensitive to structure (table rows, replaced elements), it also would allow to strip off semantic elements that don't have meaning for presentation.
>
> For implementation, this seems similar to pulling together a flow from unrelated elements (could be hidden tricky issues but I don't see any yet).

Ooh, just got a good idea - display:contents

> If that were to be defined, which spec would it belong to?

Ideally, the Box Model spec.  Until that's in working order, though,
whichever spec needs it first.

~TJ

Received on Thursday, 2 February 2012 10:16:03 UTC