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

> On Jun 24, 2015, at 10:56 AM, fantasai <> wrote:
>> On 06/24/2015 04:42 AM, Brad Kemper wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 20, 2015, at 3:09 PM, fantasai <> wrote:
>>>>>> On 02/18/2015 06:04 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 3:29 PM, Mats Palmgren <> wrote:
>>>> 'box-construction: normal | none' is a better name than the current, I
>>>> think.  fantasai, opinions?
>>> I don't think it's as user-friendly as the current list of keywords.
>>>  show | discard | hide
>>> is pretty explicit about the differences among the keywords, whereas
>>> normal | none really isn't self-evident at all.
>>> All in favor of a better property name, though!
>>> (I don't have any good suggestions.)
>> 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>
> We used to have box-suppress as a shorthand of display.
> And then realized that's continuing exactly the problem
> we have currently: conflating the display type with
> whether the box displays. So we explicitly do not want
> this property to be a longhand of the 'display' property.

Yeah, I wasn't thinking about how it resets to initial when you don't include it in the shorthand. 

I still like display-box: none | show | hide.  

>> 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.
>> C) Do we really need display-list as a separate property? Can't we just say that this:
>>     x { display: list-item }
> I think you're working off of an old draft. We resolved to recombine
> the properties back in September.

Not sure how that happened. I guess I've had it in a tab of my browser since before that, or the url autocomplete dot something. 

> Look over the latest ED?

I will. Is it 11 September 2014? That's what "Current Work" is linked to. 

> (Sorry,
> we're just getting around to fixing up the spec so it can be
> republished again.)
> ~fantasai

Received on Wednesday, 24 June 2015 19:22:39 UTC