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.

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 : Wednesday, 11 February 2015 12:35:40 UTC