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

Re: CSS properties for snapping during scrolling

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 14:43:03 +1200
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLb=n1yc53EWxm5maS=gh-EZHzN2MadvN-ZYYi-1NfkdYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Cc: Morten Stenshorne <mstensho@opera.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com> wrote:

> To me, it seems that paged overflow is a subset of the MS proposal. In
> paged overflow, one would write:
>
>   .container {
>     overflow: paged-x;
>   }
>
> while in the MS proposal you would write:
>
>   .container {
>     overflow-x: auto;
>     overflow-y: hidden;
>     -ms-scroll-snap-type: mandatory;
>     -ms-scroll-snap-points-x: snapInterval(0%, 100%);
>   }
>
> So I don't understand why it's more work to do paged overflow.
>

Because pagination affects layout of the container's descendants --- they
have to be paginated! Your two examples could lead to completely different
layouts of the content.

Rob
-- 
Jtehsauts  tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy  Mdaon  yhoaus  eanuttehrotraiitny  eovni
le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o  Whhei csha iids  teoa
stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d  'mYaonu,r  "sGients  uapr,e  tfaokreg iyvoeunr,
'm aotr  atnod  sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t"  uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n?  gBoutt  uIp
waanndt  wyeonut  thoo mken.o w  *
*
Received on Friday, 16 August 2013 02:43:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 16 August 2013 02:43:30 UTC