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

Re: [css-display] Refactoring 'display', got a crazy idea

From: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2015 11:11:53 +0200
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: "www-style list" <www-style@w3.org>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Message-ID: <op.x4dqh3eoidj3kv@simons-macbook-pro.local>
On Thu, 03 Sep 2015 00:07:16 +0200, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>  
wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 4:53 AM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 08 May 2015 01:37:47 +0200, fantasai  
>> <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
>> wrote:
>>> The term "flow" was taken from the HTML specs, where it indicates
>>> a mix of inline and block content. This is consistent with how
>>> CSS block containers accept a mix of inline and block content and
>>> format them together.
>>
>> So the HTML spec intentionally moved away from "inline" and "block"
>> terminology for its content models to avoid confusion with CSS  
>> 'display'. It
>> seems like a bad idea to repeat the same mistake.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean.  Can you elaborate?

HTML4 had the concepts "inline-level elements" and "block-level elements"  
to explain its content models, i.e. how elements are allowed to nest.

CSS has 'display:inline' and 'display:block' which are orthogonal to  
HTML's content models.

People got confused by the same names meaning different things in HTML and  
CSS. To solve this, HTML changed its terminology to "phrasing content" and  
"flow content".

By adding 'flow' to 'display', people will again be confused.

-- 
Simon Pieters
Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 3 September 2015 09:12:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:56 UTC