W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > August 2016

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-overflow] overflow: Consider support for overlay scrollbars

From: Florian Rivoal via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2016 06:44:28 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-239373049-1470984266-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
> Now that this property is just about reserving space, I don't think 
" overflow-style" is a good property name.

I agree.

> It's more like "scrollbar-gutter: auto/when-scrollable/always;"

> Dang yeah, that's pretty good. Tho overflow-gutter just to keep it 
under the overflow umbrella. 

Then again, overflow-gutter (or overflow-style for that matter) 
incorrectly suggests that this may be a longhand of overflow. So maybe
 we're better off without an overflow prefix.

>And maybe stable instead of when-scrollable (which is both long and a
 little difficult to spell).

Agreed. I had been looking for names for your **value1** and 
**value2**, and also landed on **stable** for **value1**. And if the 
property is called `...-gutter`, **always** is pretty good for 
**value2**.

> I'd like to also reopen @rbyers's earlier request to including a way
 to hide overlay scrollbars entirely and reserve no space [... but not
 the same as overflow:hidden, because it would still respond to the 
scroll wheel or touch panning ...]

I have no strong opinion for or against this part, but if we want it, 
it feels like it would influence the property and the other values' 
names. **hidden** or **invisible** sounds like an OK name for this 
**value3**, but not under a property called **...-gutter**. And since 
that part of the name was what made it possible to call **value2** 
**always**, if we do want this **value3** we have a bit more 
bikeshedding to deal with.

`scroll-style: auto | stable-gutter | always-on-gutter | no-scrollbar`
 Meh, that's lousy.

Also, I am not sure what that implies in terms of bikeshedding, but 
other than **auto**, all these values make `overflow:scroll` and 
`overflow:auto` identical to each other. Maybe overflow:auto should 
never have existed, and we should have had `overflow:scroll; 
scroll-style: on-demand` instead. But that ship has sailed a looooong 
time ago.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by frivoal
Please view or discuss this issue at 
https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/92#issuecomment-239373049 
using your GitHub account
Received on Friday, 12 August 2016 06:44:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 19 October 2021 01:30:22 UTC