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

I know it's a cold thread, but I thought I'd add another naming suggestion
that hasn't come up so far AFAICT that I like:

    display: omit

as in "omit displaying this element (only), but not its children".


Cheers,

- Roland


On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 03:13, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote:
> > On 2/2/12 2:15 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> >> 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
> >
> >
> > Is this something that will work for showing fallback content?
> >
> > It seems like it would.
> > <canvas style="display: contents"><div>This is fallback
> > content</div></canvas>
> > <audio style="display: contents">I am fallback content too!</audio>
>
> This depends on implementation.  In WebKit, these are at least
> somewhat implemented with shadow DOM internally.  display:contents
> would suppress the box generated by the <audio> element itself, but
> the 'contents' of it is still the shadow subtree.  You would instead
> need to apply a fresh shadow subtree that just grabbed the light-DOM
> children.
>
> ~TJ
>
>