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

Re: Shadows vs. layout

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:08:38 -0700
Message-ID: <4A7743C6.2090706@inkedblade.net>
To: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
CC: W3C style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
David Hyatt wrote:
>
> I also don't think it's as simple as just throwing a sentence into the 
> shadows section.  Two other examples (glyphs and border images) have 
> been brought up as well.  WebKit also has its own custom text stroking 
> CSS properties, which are somewhat similar to the glyph problem.
> 
> We're talking about really changing the definition of what overflow is 
> here and breaking it up into two categories.  If this is really how 
> people want to proceed, I think we'd need better defined language in the 
> actual overflow section of the CSS spec to explain how the two types of 
> overflow work.
> 
> Especially in the vertical case, though, the idea of not being able to 
> scroll to shadows or border images or glyphs that spill out really 
> doesn't feel right to me.

I would expect the author to provide adequate margins or padding in these
cases.

I'm not sure about border-image outside the border area, whether that should
trigger scrolling or not. I'm leaning towards leaving the standard behavior.
But shadows definitely should not trigger scrolling.

~fantasai
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 21:09:18 GMT

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