W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2014

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

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:44:36 +1300
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLbGC5CQyG9xV5aRttBPr69BWMaaBAEvkOCM8xzcEn5Xgw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Philip Rogers <pdr@chromium.org>, Charles Walton <charleswalton@google.com>, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@chromium.org>, Levi Weintraub <leviw@chromium.org>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Tue Dec 10 2013 at 5:33:25 PM, Charles Walton <
>> charleswalton@google.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If criteria 2 + 3 (the scroll-related ones) are removed, I don't see a
>>> big benefit in expanding the syntax beyond the current "none | strict"
>>> values. Being said, I'm not sure I fully understand the impact of those new
>>> generated content properties.
>>>
>>
>> The point of the expanded syntax I proposed is precisely to allow the
>> scroll-related ones to still be available, if you need them.
>>
>>
>>> Also, are there any problems with SVG-esque stuff, like imported clip
>>> paths? Say "#shape" was defined within a "contain: strict" element - could
>>> it be referenced outside that element?
>>>
>>
>> That is a good question.  Probably no, I would think.  Levi, Ojan,
>> thoughts?
>>
>
> Very late to this. It's not clear to me what should happen here. My
> intuition is that we'd want to disallow this. The things contain:strict is
> trying to achieve are style recalculation and layout isolation. So, in this
> case, laying out the contents of the contain:strict element would require
> first laying out the #shape element. It could be made to work, but I'm not
> sure we'd want to.
>

It would be some amount of work to make clip-path: url(#shape) work when
#shape is in a contain:strict element. However, it would also be some
amount of work to make sure that clip-path: url(#shape) does NOT work when
#shape's nearest contain:strict ancestor is not the nearest contain:strict
ancestor of the styled element (which I assume is what you'd really want).
I'm not sure the former is much more work than the latter.

Rob
-- 
Jtehsauts  tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy  Mdaon  yhoaus  eanuttehrotraiitny  eovni
le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o  Whhei csha iids  teoa
stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d  'mYaonu,r  "sGients  uapr,e  tfaokreg iyvoeunr,
'm aotr  atnod  sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t"  uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n?  gBoutt  uIp
waanndt  wyeonut  thoo mken.o w
Received on Thursday, 13 February 2014 01:45:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 13 February 2014 01:45:06 UTC