W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2011

Re: [css3-ui] 'overflow-x' 'overflow-y' properties (was Re: [css3-selectors] What's the point of :empty?)

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 11:12:31 -0700
Message-ID: <4E0E0E0F.1010607@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 06/30/2011 09:09 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 15:36, Tantek Çelik<tantek@cs.stanford.edu>  wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 20:11, David Hyatt<hyatt@apple.com>  wrote:
>>> On Nov 2, 2010, at 7:44 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 11:39 AM, David Hyatt<hyatt@apple.com>  wrote:
>>>> Really the sticking point is overflow:hidden, which is commonly used in
>>>> conjunction with text-overflow to truncate content in the inline direction.
>>>> In the vertical direction nothing is clipped.  Think of a button built using
>>>> inline-block that clips/truncates its content horizontally (with ellipses).
>>>>   If you force the baseline to be the bottom margin edge just because
>>>> overflow:hidden was specified, then you can no longer baseline align this
>>>> control.
>>>> What the spec says makes sense to me for overflow:auto/scroll, and we
>>>> could change that in WebKit I think, but there's a problem with what is
>>>> specified for overflow:hidden.
>>> Sounds like what you really want is overflow-x:hidden, overflow-y:visible
>>> ... with the baseline behavior depending only on overflow-y.
>>> Yeah, that would be an acceptable solution.  Unfortunately CSS2.1 doesn't
>>> define overflow-x and overflow-y and only talks in terms of overflow.
>>>   That's really what creates the problem here.  Maybe the language could be
>>> modified to state overflow in a particular direction without naming the
>>> specific properties?
>> I've accepted this an issue for CSS3-UI, that is, that CSS3 UI should
>> define 'overflow-x' and 'overflow-y' properties.
>> http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css3-ui#issue-19
> Update:
> After having looked at what it would take to properly define
> overflow-x and overflow-y, the related text that would need to be
> borrowed/copied from CSS 2.1, I'm convinced this is too big/risky of a
> change to introduce into CSS3-UI at this time.
> While I still think that CSS-UI (perhaps CSS4-UI) would make a fine
> home for overflow-x and overflow-y, I'm also open to them remaining
> instead in the CSS3 module: The box model [1].
> In fact, the CSS3 Box Model Module could use an update to incorporate
> all the changes/fixes that went into CSS 2.1 (which would probably be
> better than effectively only updating the section on overflow for
> CSS3).

Have you considered, instead of redefining overflow, just defining
overflow-x and overflow-y as a split of the CSS2.1 overflow property,
i.e. relying on CSS2.1 for most of the definition?

Received on Friday, 1 July 2011 18:13:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:47 UTC