- From: L. David Baron via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 04 May 2018 23:37:49 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
@zcorpan - Sorry for taking so long to get back to this: It's not clear to me why you're conditioning this on having scrollable overflow. (And, actually, I don't think it's really defined what *having* scrollable overflow means. I'd generally interpret that to mean that something that is included in the scrollable overflow (as the term is defined) actually overflows the padding-box. Strictly speaking, it's defined as a set, so it's always there.) If your intent is to condition it on whether scrollable overflow is overflowing the padding box... I'm not sure why you'd want to do that. My instinct would be to define the concept for everything that is a scroll container. It seems cleaner, and not doing that seems likely to be problematic for something like `overflow: scroll` without any overflow. I'm also a little worried about element/box terminology and has/is terminology. A [scroll container](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-overflow-3/#overflow-properties) is defined as a thing that *boxes* *are*. This seems to say it's a thing that *elements* *have*. I think it's probably good to use boxes. I don't actually care about has vs. is except for being consistent. -- GitHub Notification of comment by dbaron Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/pull/1540#issuecomment-386760640 using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 4 May 2018 23:37:55 UTC