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

Re: [css-ui][css-flexbox] Should 'text-overflow' work on flexboxes?

From: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 15:59:29 -0700
Message-ID: <5227BB51.3060008@mozilla.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 09/04/2013 11:31 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 4:24 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
>> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-ui/#text-overflow says:
>>   # This property specifies rendering when inline content overflows
>>   # its block container element ("the block") in its inline
>>   # progression direction that has ‘overflow’ other than ‘visible’.
> 
> That said, I'm not opposed to special-casing flexboxes so that
> anonymous flex items take their 'text-overflow' value from the
> flexbox.  Any more properties that we should do this for?

So, let's say for the sake of argument we wanted to do this -- let's say
we make anonymous flex items take their text-overflow value from the
flexbox.

That in and of itself would have no effect, since (as the quoted
spec-text above says) it only takes effect when "the block container
element" [which is the anonymous flex item in this case] "that has
'overflow' other than 'visible' [which will never happen, since authors
can't control the style of anonymous flex items -- they'll have the
initial value of "overflow", which is "visible"].

So for useful results, we'd have to actually make anonymous flex items
*also* take their "overflow" value from the flex container, as well.
(but note that that could produce unexpected results if you had
"overflow:scroll" along with several anonymous flex items)

ALTERNATELY: we could extend the text-overflow text to say something
like "If the block container is an anonymous flex item, and if the
inline content overflows that anonymous flex item's flex container,
which has "overflow" other than "visible", *then* ellipsize in that
situation."  But that seems pretty hacky to me.

So, I don't immediately see a clean way of achieving this. (and per my
previous message, I'm skeptical about the value.)

~Daniel
Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2013 22:59:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 4 September 2013 22:59:57 UTC