- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 11:31:27 +0200
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: "www-style\@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Scott Johnson <sjohnson@mozilla.com>
L. David Baron wrote:
> > "Floated or in-flow content that extends into column gaps (e.g., long
> > words or images) is clipped in the middle of the column gap."
> So the thread so far has focused on the splitting behavior. But the
> key question about the spec text Scott quoted isn't the splitting
> behavior, it's the clipping behavior. Does the above quoted
> sentence imply that any vertical clipping happens, or not?
>
> (Interpreted literally, it doesn't, but it's not clear to me that
> that's what was intended; it's a very loosely formulated sentence
> that doesn't describe its intent or mechanism very carefully.
The main purpose of the sentence, as I see it, is to avoid overlapping
content in adjacent columns. When setting, say, the number of columns
to 3 and not thinking about narrow screens, a designer is likely to
cause long words to overlap. So, I'd say that the sentence is accurate
enough, if somewhat asymmetrical.
> I think the definition needs to be described in a way that aligns
> well with the definition of painting order in Appendix E of CSS 2.1.
>
> For example, this definition implies that an extra wide relatively
> positioned element (even with z-index) is clipped, but absolutely
> positioned descendants of that rel-pos element are *not* clipped
> (even though this rel-pos element is their containing block, and if
> it has z-index, also their stacking context). Implementing that
> correctly requires a huge amount of implementation complexity, for
> no value that I can see.
Would excepting relpos content from clipping make it easier? Like the
proposed text in this message:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Aug/0526.html
-h&kon
Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Monday, 26 August 2013 09:32:07 UTC