- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 17:30:51 -0700
- To: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 05/17/2012 12:47 PM, Anton Prowse wrote: > On 17/05/2012 19:16, fantasai wrote: >> >>>> An alternative would be to define a 'flex-item' value for 'display', >>>> and make it compute to 'inline' except on children of a flex container. >>>> Then you can assign 'display: flex-item' to those elements in ua.css. >>> > OK, so back to your proposal... does it make sense that these special elements become display:flex-item yet non-inline > elements remain/become display:block, display:table etc? No, which is why I stated in the "Corollary", that if we add a 'flex-item' value, any element with display-inside: block that became a flex item would also compute its 'display' value to 'flex-item'. :) (Essentially, 'display: flex-item' means 'display-outside: flex-item', 'display-inside: block'.) > For now I prefer Tab's approach, and in future when there really is a > display-outside:flex-item, /then/ we can replace Tab's approach with your one. Indeed, we can do that as well. This just happens to solve both the replaced items case as well as the "we're going to change the computed value of 'display' in the future" problem. ~fantasai
Received on Friday, 18 May 2012 00:31:25 UTC