- From: John Waterson <john@hexism.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 17:17:17 +0100
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
Many thanks Boris, although I'm still slightly puzzled, because textarea is explicitly listed under the "non-replaced elements" section of the HTML5 Rendering spec (see here: http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/rendering.html#form-controls). I know that form controls were explicitly given as examples of replaced elements back in CSS1 days, but that appears to have vanished over the years, and I thought that particular bit of HTML5 had now formalised the fact that they should now be treated as non-replaced. But I don't follow this closely, and perhaps I've misunderstood? I was/am completely unaware of your second point, about the difference between a textarea's rendering and its DOM nodes. Not sure I fully understand the implications. However, taken in conjunction with the above point about it being non-replaced, I *think* this suggests that textarea's resistance to CSS-styling is an implementation detail, rather than an intention of the spec. Is that fair? J. On 13 October 2015 at 16:09, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > On 10/12/15 9:26 PM, John Waterson wrote: >> >> Looking for some guidance from the flexbox spec authors as to whether >> the textarea element should, at least in theory, be able to act as a >> flex container. > > > <textarea> is a replaced element, so from the point of view of CSS it's not > a container of any kind. It's a leaf, whose rendering is not defined by CSS > at all. At least in theory; in practice UAs apply a random set of CSS > properties to the insides of <textarea> in random ways that are not defined > in any spec. > >> I have already raised this question on flexbugs, and was advised to >> ask on www-style for clarification, on the reasonable grounds that >> textarea is a bit odd as a container, in that it usually only contains >> text nodes. > > > It doesn't, though. Or more precisely, the text that it renders and the > text nodes that it contains in the DOM are not at all the same thing. > > -Boris >
Received on Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:17:46 UTC