W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 1998

Re: Display Property Suggestion

From: Ian Hickson <py8ieh@bath.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 22:55:57 +0000 (GMT)
To: Christian Kaufhold <chka@uni-bremen.de>
cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.04.9811042227260.16432-100000@amos.bath.ac.uk>
On Wed, 4 Nov 1998, Christian Kaufhold wrote:
>> ... If the content does not have an inherent size, for example an
>> XML, MathML, or HTML document, then the contents should have their
>> normal display dimensions, and the box should merely crop the
>> contents (as an IFRAME does, currently, in IE).
> Actually, as the default for overflow is visible, the whole included
> document would be visible (if we want to be consistent about the
> actual definition of overflow).
Err, hmm.

Ye-es, I think you would be right.

> Maybe "visible" for overflow could be defined as meaning "auto" with
> replaced(). Then you can choose to set overflow to "scroll" if you
> always want to have scrollbars, or use "hidden" if you really want
> the included content to be cut.
No, I think leaving the overflow definitions as they are now would
work ok.

So to emulate IE's behaviour:

   IFRAME { content: replaced(attr(src)), auto;
            width: 200px, auto; height: 100px, auto;
            overflow: scroll; }

We don't need multiple "overflow"s; for example, "width: auto; height:
auto;" virtually guarantees that the overflow property's value will
not be used for the second case here (an exception would be if there
was an exceptionally long line of unbreakable (eg, whitespace:nowrap)
text).

-- 
Ian Hickson
Received on Wednesday, 4 November 1998 17:56:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:53:56 GMT