- From: Florian Rivoal via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 09:29:46 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Follow up from @fantasai > Your third option for placing the ellipsis seems pretty reasonable to me. When drafting up the spec we wanted to allow implementations to re-use as much of the existing text-overflow machinery as possible, hence the MAY -- as long as you're otherwise discarding content after the break, placing it effectively “underneath” the ellipsis for event handling is fine. It's only when the content needs to be pushed to another container that we need to make the ellipsis replace it layout-wise rather than just paint-wise. > > In typical cases, the author will not be able to tell the difference between the two behaviors. But layout replacement can affect the height of the line, which makes it a more complicated mechanism to implement correctly (and as noted, can introduce cycles, which then need to be broken). I would rather not require that extra complexity for this case, where it is not needed and the behavior change in real layouts is slight. (At some point, as we expand CSS's ability to break flows between boxes, we may want to require layout replacement here, to make discarded flows consistent with continued ones; but since such a change seems unlikely to break pages, it seems safe to allow the easier thing now.) -- GitHub Notification of comment by frivoal Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2905#issuecomment-404105905 using your GitHub account
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2018 09:29:57 UTC