- From: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
- Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 11:16:14 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>,www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
"Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >Hey all! I've been complaining for some time about the fact that >'display' unnecessarily conflates "layout mode" with "role in parent's >layout mode". I've had mini-rants about this in Lists and Flexbox, >and on the list a lot of times. Further, authors have given >consistent feedback over the years that indicates the conflation of >'display:none' with the other values is confusing or hard to work with >- in particular, they'd like to be able to toggle "none"-ness without >disturbing the original 'display' value, or having to manually >remember what the old value was. > >As such, I've written up a first draft of a proposal to split >'display' into sub-properties: ><http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-display-3/>. (It currently has the ED >styling, but as I've indicated in the Status section, it's technically >an Unofficial Draft until the WG approves it.) > ... >Thoughts? Would the WG be okay with taking this on as a work item? >It should be low-maintenance and pretty quick to advance, because I'm >not trying to do very much with it. In particular, I'm *not* wanting >to mix any block-layout-related stuff into this draft - that should be >done in an explicit Block Layout spec (Anton, your calling!). That >said, there's the potential for a little more work going on in this >spec. I have issues called out inline for additional things we could >usefully put into the draft. This idea has been floating around for a while, and does not seem to have any fundamental incompatibility with how layout engines work (at least the one I know of). I wouldn't be surprised if we ran into subtle issues when considering the combinations that weren't possible before, but I think it is absolutely worth a try. Florian
Received on Sunday, 21 October 2012 09:16:39 UTC