On Thu, 1 May 2014, David Bruant wrote:
> Le 30/04/2014 23:32, Ian Hickson a écrit :
> > > > What I'm trying to do is just that an element have display:flex
> > > > and to hide it with the hidden attribute when I don't need the
> > > > element to be shown. I guess my only option is changing
> >
Le 30/04/2014 23:32, Ian Hickson a écrit :
What I'm trying to do is just that an element have display:flex and to
hide it with the hidden attribute when I don't need the element to be
shown. I guess my only option is changing style.display?
Just add "[hidden] { display: none }" to your style she
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > It's too bad that display-box also has multiple uses--it doesn't only
> > display or hide the content, it has a third "contents" mode. That means
> > the same problem would happen a
> On Apr 30, 2014, at 17:44, "Tab Atkins Jr." wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 Apr 2014, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>>> We could change the specification to use display-box instead. That might
>>> work.
>>
>> Would that break sites that are intentio
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Ian Hickson wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2014, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> We could change the specification to use display-box instead. That might
>> work.
>
> Would that break sites that are intentionally replacing the styling for
> hidden="" from 'display:none' to 'o
On Wed, 30 Apr 2014, David Bruant wrote:
> Le 29/04/2014 23:32, David Bruant a écrit :
> >
> > // CSS:
> > div {
> > display: flex;
> > }
> >
> > // HTML:
> >
> >
> > Per spec, the div should be shown right? I imagine there is no way
> > back on that?
Right. You want:
div[hidden] { disp
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 7:32 AM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> It's too bad that display-box also has multiple uses--it doesn't only
> display or hide the content, it has a third "contents" mode. That means
> the same problem would happen as soon as you set "display-box: contents" on
> something--it wou
Previous discussion:
http://lists.whatwg.org/pipermail/whatwg-whatwg.org/2012-November/037905.html
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 6:01 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Per spec, the div should be shown right? I imagine there is no way back
> on
> >> that?
>
> We could change the specificati
On 30/04/2014 13:01 , Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Le 29/04/2014 23:32, David Bruant a écrit :
// CSS:
div{
display: flex;
}
// HTML:
Per spec, the div should be shown right? I imagine there is no way back on
that?
We could change the specification to use display-box instead. That might work
Le 30/04/2014 13:01, Anne van Kesteren a écrit :
Le 29/04/2014 23:32, David Bruant a écrit :
Hi,
// CSS:
div{
display: flex;
}
// HTML:
Per spec, the div should be shown right? I imagine there is no way back on
that?
We could change the specification to use display-box instead. That migh
> Le 29/04/2014 23:32, David Bruant a écrit :
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> // CSS:
>> div{
>> display: flex;
>> }
>>
>> // HTML:
>>
>>
>> Per spec, the div should be shown right? I imagine there is no way back on
>> that?
We could change the specification to use display-box instead. That might work.
--
h
Ok, sorry, I was pissed off... The web platform triggers this sort of
reactions sometimes :-)
Constructive proposal:
* a special value for the hidden attribute that forces the element to be
hidden regardless of what the CSS or style attribute says for the
display value.
Maybe `hidden="force"`
Hi,
// CSS:
div{
display: flex;
}
// HTML:
Per spec, the div should be shown right? I imagine there is no way back
on that?
Does it mean hidden only works when the default (UA stylesheet) display
value is kept? Does it mean hidden is completely useless when trying to
combine it with displ
13 matches
Mail list logo
