Re: [css-display] Unofficial draft of a Display spec ready for consumption

On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Andrew Fedoniouk
<> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <> wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Andrew Fedoniouk
>> <> wrote:
>>> 'display-box'  either 'normal' or 'none'
>>> sounds misleading for inline elements. They have no box to hide or to
>>> show normally.
>> Inline elements generate boxes.
> So it should be plural then, display-boxes or so.

As I said, the names of those two properties (display-box and
display-extras) suck, and I'd appreciate better suggestions.

> But display:none does not just mean not generating boxes.
> It is also about margin collapsing for example.

display:none has absolutely nothing to do with margin collapsing.

> Ideally it has to be one CSS property that defines/triggers
> layout manager to be used on an element.
> Otherwise it is not clear what this means for example:
> #ugly-container {
>   display: flex;
>   flex-direction:row;
>   columns:12em;
> }

No, this is quite clear.  Flexbox currently has text explicitly
disallowing this, but it implies that the restriction is a more
general one: that multicol only "works" in block layout.  We can
formalize that now, and say that the multicol properties only have an
effect when 'display-inside' is "block".

>>> But I am not sure I understand how your split will be backward compatible.
>>> Something tells me that it is not.
>> I don't understand.  The 'display' property explicitly handles all of
>> the legacy values appropriately.  There's nothing else to be
>> compatible with.
> How should CSS2.1 only UA render this:
> span {
>    display-inside: block;
>    display-outside: inline-level;
>  }

Um, *any* new property will be unrecognized in old UAs.  The old
property and values still work, so you can continue to just use that
as long as you need to care about old UAs.


Received on Monday, 22 October 2012 17:40:48 UTC