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

Re: [css-containment] ED of Containment ready for review (was overflow:clip)

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 08:15:28 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDA+1Ky-nd7Ls7GYwDDJSSMHrJ-abONaC3D+nWZcPpyXnQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
Cc: Charles Walton <charleswalton@google.com>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Ojan Vafai <ojan@google.com>
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yup - if it's possible to scroll, then we have to (a) pay attention to
>> the elements "below the fold", even if they'd otherwise be ignorable,
>> and (b) paint at least some of the off-screen stuff, so that it'll be
>> smooth if you start scrolling.
>
> That's only true for elements that are themselves visible, or nearly
> visible. I think we could drop this requirement.

Yes, but still.  The scrolling restrictions come from requests on our
end.  ccing Ojan for an elaboration on the reasoning.

> I agree with Simon that the text is ambiguous. Instead of "An element that
> is strictly contained operates under the following restrictions:", I would
> say
>>
>> An element that is strictly contained has the following restrictions
>> applied to it by the user-agent:
>> 1. The contents of the element are clipped to the element’s content box.
>
> etc

Sure.

> In part 1 you should be more clear about "contents". Presumably the contents
> of an element don't include its border, for example, but this is unclear.

I'm not sure how to more clearly talk about contents.

> I believe restrictions 2 and 3 should be dropped.

Let's let some of the engineers that asked me for this restriction to
chime in first.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2013 16:16:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:17 UTC