- From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 08:41:46 +0200
- To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
- CC: Morten Stenshorne <mstensho@opera.com>, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
On 25/06/2012 14:21, Morten Stenshorne wrote:
> Regarding proposal C, I'm fine with that one. But I think this is what
> the spec used to say back in early May, and that it's the reason why
> we're having this discussion in the first place.
The trouble with C, as fantasai points out in [1], is that two adjacent
inline images which fail to load will have their alt text glommed
together into one (anonymous) flex item. This seems pretty
user-unfriendly. The only reason we're trying to do magic here is to
account for the fact that apparently authors aren't going to figure out
that their buttons etc need to be set to display:inline-block; yet if
they're not going to figure that out then I'm doubtful they're going to
think particularly deeply about how to play safe in the case that images
don't load. Hence C is a footgun, and the resulting guru recommendation
for authors is likely to be to do something like
#div {display:flexbox}
#div > * {display:inline-block}
which is presumably what we're trying to avoid by having this discussion
at all. (Note that that recommendation is effectively an implementation
of Proposal D.)
> So if C is not an option, I like proposal D. There needs to be an
> exception for absolutely positioned boxes there somehow, though?
Unexpectedly, I'm now coming around to proposal D as well. It's not
that I don't like B – I think we'll have to introduce it in future in
any case – it's just that I think it's too early for it.
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012May/0250.html
Cheers,
Anton
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2012 06:42:25 UTC