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

Re: [css3-ui] Proposal for an "overlay" value for 'overflow'

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:21:27 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDA8eYAqT2r8s9Wr15gj_z-PvwCgoZ1-4vg=KWmZ2Qwajg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 1:53 PM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2013, at 11:58 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I just learned of this this morning, but apparently WebKit has a
>> long-existing extra value for 'overflow' called "overlay":
>> <https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32388>.  It's not prefixed or
>> anything.  Its effect is identical to "auto", except it forces the
>> scrollbars, when generated, to be overlay rather than space-filling.
>> That is, the scrollbars act like abspos elements attached to the
>> end/after edges of the element, and if there's insufficient padding on
>> those edges, will happily overlap content at the edge.
>> Here's an example of it in action: <http://jsfiddle.net/rNxgD/>.  View
>> in a WebKit-based browser, obviously.
>> This is apparently used by a small amount of web content, and some
>> Apple content, which means we can't remove it from our engine easily.
>> It seems potentially useful for general CSS, though.  How do others
>> feel about standardizing this?
> Can you provide more data on pages that use this in the wild?
> I don't believe we have any content at Apple that cares about overflow:overlay;
> if we do, then we should move it under a prefix.
> I don't think we should standardize this value.

All I know is the information in the bug that I linked in my original
message.  Apparently Hyatt tried to prefix it in 2006, but had to give
up for some reason and reverted it to being prefixless.  Julien
Chaffraix attempted to remove it last year, and apparently received
the answer that's it's used internally in some Apple stuff.

Can you provide more detail about why you don't think we should
standardize this value?

Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 22:22:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:07 UTC