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

Re: scroll bar size in width calculations

From: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 22:25:25 -0800
Message-ID: <47831755.7070505@terrainformatica.com>
To: robert@ocallahan.org
CC: Rossen Atanassov <ratan@windows.microsoft.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@exchange.microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Sam Fortiner <samfort@microsoft.com>, Harel Williams <harelw@microsoft.com>, Scott Dickens <sdickens@exchange.microsoft.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>

Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2008 9:33 AM, Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com 
> <mailto:news@terrainformatica.com>> wrote:
>     Compare this sample:
>     http://www.terrainformatica.com/w3/overflow-visible.htm
>     in IE and in FF for example.
> That test is being rendered in quirks mode in Firefox and I think all 
> browsers. You really should use a DOCTYPE that triggers standards mode 
> in all browsers if you want to discuss the standards. I think they 
> actually fixed the "specified-'height' blocks expand to contain content" 
> bug in IE7 standards mode.

I have updated the <doctype> in this document. I cannot see any 
difference in FF, IE 6 and 7 because of this change.

Yes, IE7, FF 2/3 and Opera 9.5 render this document close to each other.

The problem is that IE rendering (6 and 7 in quirks mode) is the most 
humanistic and accessible. It allows at least to see content but not 
that mess you observe.

That is a primordial problem of CSS box model.

It has to be:
1) either 'overflow:none' - "never overflow" instruction or
2) something similar to David Baron's 'intrinsic' value for
    min-width/min-height attributes. That is also "never
    overflow" instruction.

In fact overflow:none has to be a default value. Otherwise
any page that use fixed widths/heights has accessibility problems
because of the very nature of CSS.
that and my sample above are hardly readable, isn't it?

Andrew Fedoniouk.

Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2008 06:25:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:33 UTC