W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2017

Re: [css-display] FYI: Gecko Intent to ship CSS display:flow-root

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2017 16:39:41 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBD0yXjPzHazv2KN5ybVcyB23XWsgKOSV0Zx=o7bZ_qmg@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: Mats Palmgren <mats@mozilla.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Jet Villegas <jet@mozilla.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 7:24 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> On 12/23/2016 11:43 PM, Mats Palmgren wrote:
>> On 12/23/2016 07:00 PM, fantasai wrote:
>>> That said, I'd love to see you all at least *ask* us to officially
>>> stabilize specs you're planning to ship before announcing that
>>> you're going to do it anyway.
>> Well, Tab said it was "stable design-wise" and then implied that
>> he wanted to see someone shipping it:
>> https://discourse.wicg.io/t/containing-floated-children-with-clear-after-modern-clearfix/1835/6
>> I took that as an OK to ship it; did I misunderstand?
> His statement there isn't wrong, but it's also not clearance to ship.
> Not entirely your fault for taking it the wrong way; I think Tab has
> a tendency to forget that we have a process that requires more than
> his opinion...

>_< My statement wasn't "Hey browsers, ship this, you slow-asses". It was entirely true statements: the two of us think it's stable, but as with any feature, it's not *truly* stable until a shipping implementation freezes it.

>> AFAICT, the 'display' keywords we haven't implemented yet are:
>>   run-in, flow, inline-list-item
>> Is the spec for these stable enough to implement and/or ship?
> Most of Display has been basically blocked on someone other than me
> and Tab to review it for sanity. :) See the email I sent you on 3 Aug
> 2016. Bzbarsky sent in some comments on the shakier features, which I
> still need to fully process, but I'm also waiting on your analysis of
> the spec for 'display: contents'!
>> I think we (Gecko) plan to implement 'inline-list-item'[1] at some point.

inline-list-item is just list-item except it's inline-level.  Where
the ::marker goes is well-defined already (it just becomes an inline)

>> I'm not aware of any plans to implement 'display:flow', but it seems
>> kind of trivial (in its single-keyword form) so I don't see any reason
>> not to.

"flow" is just "block", so it should indeed be trivial. ^_^  Of the
four values in the {flow, flow-root}x{block, inline} combos, three of
them are existing defined values; only "block flow-root" is new.

>> There's a (very old) bug filed on 'run-in' where someone said it was
>> *removed* from Chrome/Safari[2] - was that because authors weren't
>> very interested in this feature, or because of some other reason?
>> Are they interested in adding it again?
> It was because the CSS2 box model for it was insane, and therefore the
> implementation was very buggy.

Yeah, new run-in and old run-in are basically completely unrelated.

Received on Saturday, 7 January 2017 00:40:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:06 UTC