W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2004

Re: where is overflow:none ?

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 21:14:11 -0700
Message-ID: <004101c43c8e$928db6c0$0301a8c0@ATHLON>
To: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@iinet.net.au>, "W3C Style List" <www-style@w3.org>

Thanks a lot, Lachlan, informative and very convincing.

Seems like min-width: intrinsic will solve a problem and will satisfy

min-height already have such value applied as far as understand it.
At least Gecko, Opera and IE all behave this way.

Andrew Fedoniouk.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lachlan Hunt" <lachlan.hunt@iinet.net.au>
To: "W3C Style List" <www-style@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2004 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: where is overflow:none ?

> Andrew Fedoniouk wrote:
> > overflow:none has a clear logical sense (for me): in no circumstances
> > width or/and box height will be less than its content - read: will never
> > overflow.
>    It doesn't make any sense because the overflow:none would be
> affecting the height/width of a box which is the job for the height and
> width properties, whereas, currently, 'overflow' only affects how
> content outside the box is rendered.
>    What would happen with the following code?
> p {
>    max-height: 2em;
>    max-width: 5em;
>    overflow: none;
> }
> ...
> <p>This is a long paragraph, that requires a box bigger than the
> 'max-height' and 'max-width' properties allows...</p>
> The 'max-height' and 'max-width' properties say *do not* create a box
> bigger than 10em x 2em, but the overflow property says *do not* create a
> box smaller than the height/width required by the content.  So, since
> the paragraph would obviously need a much bigger box than 10em x 2em, it
> would seem that the max-height and -width properties are now conflicting
> with the overflow property, thus what height would the box be?
>    To me, an intrinsic value for the height/width properties would make
> much more sense.
> --
> Lachlan Hunt
Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2004 00:17:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:13 UTC