W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2008

RE: Overflow and Margins

From: Bruno Fassino <fassino@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 23:23:24 +0100
To: "'Alan Gresley'" <alan1@azzurum.com>
Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00ca01c866b3$6ce204f0$6905a8c0@bruno>

Alan Gresley wrote:

> The other lot of test cases is for an overflow box with width
> of length 400px:
>
>
http://css-class.com/test/css/viseffects/overflow-length-with-inner-box.htm
[...]
>
> Gecko 1.8 diverges from Gecko 1.9 and Safari 3 with the width of the
> scrollable box from example 3a in each test case. This is where padding
> is introduced on the overflow box.
[...]
> In no part of 10.3.3 does it mentioned if padding-right is also ignored


This behavior of Gecko 1.9 and Safari 3 (no 'visible' right-padding and the
'end' of the overflowing content) looks the easier to explain to me (even
though it could be the less desirable.)
An interpretation could be the following:
The padding right is not ignored, but it is not at the 'end' of the
overflowing content (why should it be there?)
It is in the same place as if the overflow box had overflow visible, and the
overflowing content simply overlaps it.

The overflowing mechanism reveals something beyond the right padding edge.
If I make the overflow box relative and put an absolute box at right:0, this
doesn't go to the 'end' of the overflowing content. So if it is an
indication of the right padding edge, it agrees with the above
interpretation.

I'm absolutely not saying that the above is the real correct interpretation,
but it looks possible. Your interesting test cases shows some differences
among browsers. There are surely many things to evaluate, moreover the spec
doesn't define exactly what the scrolling mechanism should do. I really find
difficult to decide what is more correct...


--
Bruno Fassino http://www.brunildo.org/test
Received on Sunday, 3 February 2008 22:23:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:01 GMT