W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2015

Re: [css-display] feedback on box-suppress

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 09:37:15 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCYBpG8u2nH_0tCQe7pedWxQ+kYsZwYR+JW7tei8DePtg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:42 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> A) How about:
>     display-box: none | show | hide
> This has the advantage of giving authors something very similar to what they are used to: 'display-box:none' is an easy to remember alternative to the familiar 'display:none'. And it is saying that there is no display of the box, which is easy to understand.
> Having it start with 'display-' also makes it seem more like it belongs in the family of 'display-*' properties. And it fits well with the second half of my proposal, for the shorthand:
>    display: [<display-outside> [<display-inside> [<display-box> <display-list>?]?]?] | <legacy-values>

box-suppress is *very intentionally* not part of the display
shorthand; keeping it separate was the entire point of writing it, so
you could manipulate the display and suppression separately.

> B) If the order was enforced, as above, then we wouldn't have to remember which one used 'block | inline' and which one was supposed to include '-level' too. You could just write 'display: inline block none', and it would do the same as a 'display:none' that didn't forget that it was originally 'display:inline-block'. Easy peasy.
> And, once again, it would be easy on authors to just start writing 'display: inline block' instead of 'display: inline-block'. And 'display:block' and 'display:inline' wouldn't change at all from the legacy version, even though they would technically be shorthands now.

inline-level/block-level are gone now.  The rejiggering I did a few
weeks ago eliminated the need for that.  "display: inline block"
doesn't work (they're both "outside" values) - you still either write
"inline-block" or break it apart into "inline flow-root".

> C) Do we really need display-list as a separate property? Can't we just say that this:
>     x { display: list-item }
> ...is equivalent to this:
>     x { display: block }
>     x::marker { display: inline }
> Thus, having a display of not 'none' on the ::marker would make it a list item. Bam. Now it gets 'disc' as the initial 'list-style-type' and a bullet as the marker content. This seems simpler me, and easier to mentally track what's going on, and how 'display: list-item' interacts with ::marker.

That property disappeared weeks ago, when I rejiggered things back to
a single 'display' non-shorthand.

Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2015 16:38:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:55 UTC