W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2009

Re: Shadows vs. layout

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 12:18:34 -0700
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <20090803191834.GA11578@pickering.dbaron.org>
On Monday 2009-08-03 10:15 -0700, Brad Kemper wrote:
> This seems like the wrong behavior to me. Aside from the fact that an  
> absolutely positioned item is also not supposed to affect layout, and  

I don't think absolute positioning is a good comparison here; plenty
of pages rely on being able to scroll to the extents of absolutely
positioned elements.  (For example, pages where all the content is
absolutely positioned.)

On Monday 2009-08-03 13:55 -0500, David Hyatt wrote:
> On Aug 3, 2009, at 1:54 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>> David Hyatt wrote:
>>> You're saying the engine has to track shadows as visual overflow for 
>>> the purposes of accurate container repainting, but then somehow  
>>> track a completely second set of visual overflow numbers that  
>>> exclude shadows just to ensure that you don't include shadow  
>>> overflow when scrolling?

>> Note that Gecko is planning to do just that; it's needed anyway to  
>> deal with fonts where glyphs don't fit inside their claimed bounding  
>> box (unless you think that that situation should also trigger  
>> scrollbars, basically any time you have justified text in such a font 
>> and such a glyph at end of line?).
>
> I do think it should trigger scrollbars yes.

I seem to recall we tried this and it broke pages by triggering
scrollbars in too many places, but roc would probably know for sure.
I haven't been able to find the relevant bug reports...

-David

-- 
L. David Baron                                 http://dbaron.org/
Mozilla Corporation                       http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 19:19:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:20 GMT