- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 12:25:05 -0800
- To: www-style@w3.org
On Sunday 2012-02-19 14:32 -0500, Boris Zbarsky wrote: > On 2/19/12 2:21 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > >If anyone has examples of such issues, please could you document them > >in this thread? > > The fact that "display" and "position" and "float" are separate > properties (or at the very least that the "absolute" and "fixed" > values of "position" are not just values of "display", and likewise > for left and right floating). Not sure that "everyone" agrees on > this, though. I certainly agree. A few others off the top of my head (though I'll likely think of more later): Form controls should have been display types, even if not defined in CSS levels 1 and 2. Setting a form control to display:inline or display:block should have made it not look like a form control anymore. (I think Mac IE 5 did that, but I didn't have a chance to change Gecko in time to keep that behavior Web-compatible.) CSS should have had 2 different types of blocks, one for a frame (a region of formatting), and one for something that just causes line breaks. This would have enabled having an inline formatting model that more closely matches design tradition (though still avoiding accidental overlap) by having the line spacing between lines rather than around them. It also would have let us solve bullet displacement around floats without an indent-edge-reset property (as proposed). Margin collapsing shouldn't have involved collapsing through blocks. Mutually exclusive media types (screen, projection, print, handheld) shouldn't have existed; media queries are the way to go. !important should have used a delimiter other than !. The 'clip' property should not have existed. 'auto' margins should not have existed; we should have had block-align instead. Link pseudo-classes should have been :link, :unvisited-link, and :visited-link. Or more likely (for privacy) just :link, plus properties to change the color and background for visited-ness. Perhaps the descendant combinator in selectors shouldn't have been easier to type than all the other combinators. -David -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂
Received on Sunday, 19 February 2012 20:25:28 UTC