W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2013

Re: [CSSWG][css-overflow] First Public WD of CSS Overflow Module Level 3

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:13:26 -0700
Message-Id: <98152876-0FD9-43BA-9A56-87CBD17A0DDB@gmail.com>
Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>

On Apr 25, 2013, at 11:37 AM, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com> wrote:

> Also sprach Brad Kemper:
> 
>> I mentioned it in another thread full of other points, but how do
>> you feel about making 'overflow-x' and 'overflow-y' be based on
>> writing mode, so that 'overflow-x' overflowed to the left for
>> vertical-rl writing?
> 
> +1
> 
> This matches Opera's intent, if not implementation (as Presto doesn't
> support vertical writing).
> 
>> If there are compatibility concerns, this behavior could be
>> switched on with a separate property, such as 'overflow-behavior:
>> logical | physical', or something like that.
> 
> I'd like to avoid such switches as they create more interdependencies.
> It's better to have names/values where the meaning is self-evident.
> For example, 'text-indent' depends on the writing direction, while
> 'margin-left' doesn't.

So, do you think compatibility with existing overflow-x and overflow-y using vertical writing mode in the wild is not a big concern? Or do you think there should be two new, better-named properties, such as 'overflow-inline' and 'overflow-block'?
Received on Thursday, 25 April 2013 19:14:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:10 UTC