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

Re: [css3-marquee][css3-gcpm][css3-box] rethinking overflow, overflow-x, overflow-y and overflow-style

From: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 14:40:26 -0700
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CBEE813D.10DE6%stearns@adobe.com>
On 5/31/12 9:32 AM, "Florian Rivoal" <florianr@opera.com> wrote:

>=== Proposal ===
>
>== In css3-box:
>
>* define overflow-x and overflow-y to be in the inline and block
>directions, not in the physical direction.

This makes sense to me. Aside from the nomenclature, is there any reason
to keep these physical?

>
>== In css3-marquee:
>
>* drop the overflow-style property
>* introduce overflow-x:marquee to replace overflow-style:marquee-line
>* maybe introduce overflow-y:marquee to replace
>overflow-style:marquee-block

I am in favor of this replacement.

>* Optionally define overflow:marquee to either mean:
>"overflow-x:marquee;overflow-y:visible;" or
>"overflow-x:marquee;overflow-y:marquee" depending on whether or not we
>introduce overflow-y:marquee

Since it would not make sense to have marquee in both directions, I'm in
favor of the first shorthand definition whether or not we have
overflow-y:marquee.

>
>== In gcpm:
>
>* replace overflow-style:paged-* by overflow-y:paged-*
>* don't introduce paged on overflow-x, as It doesn't do anything useful
>* optionally define overflow:paged-* to mean:
>"overflow-x:hidden;overflow-y:paged-*"

Why 'hidden' instead of the initial value? Wouldn't overflow:paged-* mean
"overflow-x:visible;overflow-y:paged-*" ?

If overflow-x and overflow-y keep their current physical definition, then
it will make sense to have paged-* values for both (and repeat values on
both as well). But then we'll have to define what happens when they are
applied in the inline direction, as we can only fragment content in the
block direction.

>
>== In the upcoming CSS repetition:
>
>* use overflow-y:repeat (we can bikeshed on the value name later, I just
>care about which property it is a value of)
>* don't introduce repeat on overflow-x, as it doesn't do anything useful
>* Optionally define overflow:repeat to mean:
>"overflow-x:visible;overflow-y:repeat"

I agree.

Thanks,

Alan
Received on Friday, 1 June 2012 21:42:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:55 GMT