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

Re: Shadows vs. layout

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 16:12:17 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0908031412v7583fd09x69ae7244b92643c9@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>, W3C style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:08 PM, fantasai<fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> 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.

I can probably be convinced otherwise, but I'm still thinking that
using appropriate (suppressed) borders to make the block's geometry
work as expected is a better idea than making border-images cause
overflow.

~TJ
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 21:13:17 GMT

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