- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 16:27:38 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `Clarify spec text about contain:layout so that its ink-overflow effect on a scrollable element is clearer`, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLVED: Accept change in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3023#issuecomment-415885325 to clairfy ink overflow bit only appies to visible, clip or a combination` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <dael> Topic: Clarify spec text about contain:layout so that its ink-overflow effect on a scrollable element is clearer<br> <dael> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3023#issuecomment-415885325<br> <dael> florian: I think this is sort of an editorial mistake. Makes a normative difference<br> <dael> florian: layout containement when on spec says overflow is treated as ink. Meant if overflow is visible it's treated as ink so if content escapes it doesn't trigger scrollbars on an ancestor. But if there is scroll we don't have a problem triggering scroll so if all is ink we never get scrollbars<br> <dael> florian: I think this is clarifying, but it is effectively a normative change. Are we okay with it?<br> <dael> astearns: Concerns?<br> <dael> dbaron: Think I'm okay. Gecko impl what it said now.<br> <dael> florian: He's the one that raised it with a comment that what Chrome does is more useful<br> <dael> florian: Some tests will need fixing too, but I'll do that.<br> <dael> astearns: Objections?<br> <dael> RESOLVED: Accept change in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3023#issuecomment-415885325 to clairfy ink overflow bit only appies to visible, clip or a combination<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/3023#issuecomment-417016569 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2018 16:27:39 UTC