W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2012

Re: Region overflow proposal

From: Florian Rivoal <florianr@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 11:13:29 +0200
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.witikrv64p7avi@localhost.localdomain>
On Fri, 10 Aug 2012 03:14:27 +0200, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:

> On 8/7/12 2:17 AM, "Florian Rivoal" <florianr@opera.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Styling an Œ::nth-region()¹ pseudo-element with the Œoverflow¹ property
>>>
>>> has no effect;
>>
>> I think it should be allowed. If you set overflow to something else than
>> region on the 3rd region, no 4th region will be generated. But I find it
>> reasonable to be able to express "when overflowing, clone this box up to
>> 5
>> instances, then hide whatever's left".
>>
>> #foo { overflow:region; }
>> #foo::nth-region(5) { overflow:hidden; }
>
> Instead of this method for limiting how many repeated boxes are  
> generated,
> what if we said that:
>
> #foo { overflow:region(5); }
>
> To mean only 5 region boxes will be generated for this element? We would
> have to choose a single overflow value for that last box (probably  
> hidden)

I don't think there is a good answer to the question of what the overflow  
of
the last box should be.

> but we'd avoid weirdness like this:
>
> #foo { overflow:region; }
> #foo::nth-region(5) { overflow:hidden; }
>
> #foo::nth-region(6) { ignored:stuff; }

What's so weird about that? It's always been possible to write selectors  
that don't match anything. Even if you just write this, you get ignored  
stuff.

#foo { overflow:region; }
#foo::nth-region(6) {  
ignored:if-there-is-only-enough-content-for-3-regions; }
Received on Friday, 10 August 2012 09:13:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:58 GMT