- From: Khushal Sagar via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2022 22:49:24 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The option 2 above is suggesting that the source of a replaced element (image, canvas etc) should be treated similar to self visual overflow effects like shadows/blurs. If that's the case then neither of the clipping properties (overflow: clip or contain:paint) would apply. contain:paint doesn't clip these effects either. So it seems like a fundamental question here is whether the source of a replaced element should be defined as its content (which is clipped by overflow:clip or contain:paint) or a visual effect like a shadow. The children of the element (if any) could be treated similarly. I'm more inclined to treat them as contents since it would allow developers to customize the clip (reference box and margin) using overflow:clip and overflow-clip-margin similar to other elements. I'm unsure about whether we should allow a replaced element to become a scrollable container in that case. -- GitHub Notification of comment by khushalsagar Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7144#issuecomment-1079497899 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 25 March 2022 22:49:25 UTC