- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 14:23:31 -0800
- To: Henrik Andersson <henke@henke37.cjb.net>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:18 PM, Henrik Andersson <henke@henke37.cjb.net> wrote: > Tab Atkins Jr. skriver: >> Recent discussion between me, fantasai, and some internal people over >> the 'display-box' property >> <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-display-3/#the-display-box> have led us >> to conclude that it needs to be a completely separate property, not a >> longhand of 'display'. (Reasoning below.) However, now we need a >> name. We've come up with "box", "show", and "box-tree". Better >> suggestions? >> >> Rationale: >> Currently the Display module makes "none"-ness a sub-property of >> 'display'. This does what we want (gives us an independent switch for >> whether or not the box is shown, separate from box type), but this has >> some problems: >> >> * To set the box type safely, you need to always set two properties, >> 'display-inside' and 'display-outside', so as to avoid accidentally >> clobbering the "none"-ness value. >> * Currently, authors use 'display' to set the box type, which means >> that UA-stylesheet use of the "none"-ness value will get clobbered >> unless everyone rewrites their pages (which won't happen). > > Another motivation is that it is simpler for scripting to toggle a > separate property than to remember what the old value was of the property. I didn't list that because that's a benefit of the current approach in the Display spec, where 'display-box' is a sub-property of 'display'. This email was about *problems* with 'display-box', so listing things that 'display-box' still did right didn't seem relevant. ^_^ ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 5 March 2013 22:24:19 UTC