- From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 12:41:04 -0700
- To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: "Markus Jonsson" <carnaby@passagen.se>, <www-style@w3.org>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
To: "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com>
Cc: "Markus Jonsson" <carnaby@passagen.se>; <www-style@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2007 11:28 AM
Subject: Re: Should 'display: none' be handled by 'visibility'?
> Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
>> I think that it makes sense to redefine rendering behavior of visibility:
>> collapse
>> and give it exactly the same meaning as display:none.
>
> Except that they have different effects, even on internal table elements.
> Other than that minor detail, no problem.
>
> Note that the ostensible use case of visibility:collapse on internal table
> elements _is_ a use case we want to meet and is not really covered by
> display:none.
>
> -Boris
Hi, Boris.
Let it be special meaning for visibility:collapse in tables.
I even think that
p { visibility: collapse }
should behave this way too - such a paragraph in normal (static) flow
shall participate in computation of min/max-intrinsic widths of its
container but its height will collapse.
(if we will come up with flow:horizontal one day then width
will collapse instead of height)
This makes a perfect sence for me: display:none is used primarily
for dynamic effects - collapsing of elements per se.
Andrew Fedoniouk.
http://terrainformatica.com
Received on Friday, 27 July 2007 19:41:43 UTC