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

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

From: Charles Walton <charleswalton@google.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 11:56:30 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+WPxve5ZxpsYsHEwNqs8P6Y9-YpxsAA5PF0BgOAHHbPtBVR8Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Ojan Vafai <ojan@google.com>, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@chromium.org>, Levi Weintraub <leviw@chromium.org>, "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> * "paint" would be #1, #4, and #5
> * "style" would be #6 and #7
>

I'd guess that to the average author, "paint" and "style" would be seem to
be largely overlapping. I don't even know if many authors have heard of
"paint" before or know what it signifies. Also, the "paint" constraints
have as much to do with constraining layout, as opposed to just paint.

What about something more like:
contain: all | scroll | none;

where:
"all" enforces #1-7,
"scroll" enforces #1, 4-7,
and "none" is the default.

Charley
Received on Thursday, 5 December 2013 19:57:18 UTC

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