- From: Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 10:42:08 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 21:52:40 +0200, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > On 06/25/2012 06:13 AM, Florian Rivoal wrote: >> On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 14:21:26 +0200, Morten Stenshorne >> <mstensho@opera.com> wrote: >> >>> I don't see how we could reasonably do B now, at least not with the >>> 'display-inside' thing, since that property (AFAIK) is not part of any >>> spec yet. >> >> That's just a shortcut in this non normative text, meaning all the >> display types >> that have would have block as their display inside if we introduced >> that property, >> (block and inside-block. Anything else?) >> >>> So, in my opinion, B causes more mess than it solves. >>> Proposal A would be nice, >> >> My general feeling is that A is a better default behavior than C. >> >> My issue with proposal A is that there is no opt out. For the things >> that are display block by default, an author can set >> display to inline if that's better for him. But for these >> intended-to-be-replaced elements, there is no opt out. B's default >> behavior is the same as A, but with an opt out, and that's why I like >> it. > > Given that introducing flow content into a flexbox is not a use case > we need or want to solve, I don't see that an opt-out is necessary. > The only reason I suggested B is that I don't like having CSS hard-code > behavior in terms of element names. That would push me toward proposal D then. In A, you do have an opt out, but only for some elements, and that's just weird. - Florian
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2012 08:42:40 UTC