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

Re: Proposal for overflow painting order

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 12:07:58 -0600
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0902051007h1dcebb1am9c6fbf76d06dd386@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org List" <www-style@w3.org>, David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Andrew Fedoniouk
<news@terrainformatica.com> wrote:
> Specification introduced overlapping of elements by using negative margins.
> That overlapping *must* be specified. As simply as that.
>
> Current "not defined" spec produces following overlap (lateral view of tree
> elements with the one in the middle having negative margins):
>
> <pre>
>
>  \
> ---\
>    \-----
>     \
>
> </pre>
>
> But possible options are:
>
> Negative on top:
> <pre>
>
>   =====
> ----   ----
>
> </pre>
>
> Negative underneath:
> <pre>
>
> ----   ----
>   =====
>
> </pre>

I'm not an expert on the overflow painting rules, but the current UA
default behavior makes sense to me, and more importantly, *can't be
reproduced easily through other methods.*.  On the other hand, putting
it unilaterally over or under the overlapping content can be easily
done through z-index.  It's not an absolutely ideal solution, but
it'll work for the vast majority of cases, and is very simple.
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 18:08:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:16 GMT