- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 09:46:25 -0700
- To: Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 6:41 AM, Jonathan Kew <jfkthame@gmail.com> wrote: > So I'd like to propose - given that a number of people, in earlier > discussions, seemed to think that a presentational attribute in HTML was not > the appropriate solution - a CSS property 'orient' (or 'orientation'?), > something like this: > > Name: orient > Value: inline-axis | block-axis | horizontal | vertical | circular > Initial: inline-axis > Applies to: <progress>, <meter> and <input type=range> elements > Inherited: no (?) > Media: visual > Computed value: same as specified value (?) > Percentages: n/a > Animatable: no I agree with this. Some nits: 1. Just use "inline" and "block". I don't think there's a need to invoke -axis here. 2. I'd avoid "circular" or any other new types unless a browser is actually proposing to add such a display variant. > Some open questions: should this property inherit? I'm guessing not; is that > appropriate? Correct, it should not. It doesn't matter too much here, but generally this class of properties that affect an element rather than a context don't inherit. > Should its computed value equal the specified value, or should > it resolve 'inline-axis' and 'block-axis' to one of the physical > orientations, based on the value of writing-mode? No, keep it specified value. Don't interact with writing-mode unless necessary; it makes computed-time more complicated. > Are there other elements > where specifying orientation would be useful? I don't think there are in HTML, but this would be defined as being language-specific in effect anyway; CSS can't define what it actually means except in broad strokes. If there are any other elements where it has an effect, the host language has to define that. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2014 16:47:12 UTC