- From: Sebastian Zartner via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 21:15:56 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I'd argue to split out the `<visual-box>` value from the longhands into its own `overflow-clip-margin-box-*` properties. This allows to have a shorthand `overflow-clip-margin-box` to cover the common use case to set the same box for all sides while still allowing to set the sides individually. @Loirooriol: > I suspect that in most cases authors will want to use the same box. That's more tedious to write with the 1st option (and there is the risk of authors writing it only once and assuming it will be used for all sides), and it's not possible with the 3rd option (if the lengths are different) That assumption by authors could actually be specified. I.e. if the box is only specified in the first part, apply it to all four sides. So e.g. `content-box 2em / 4em` would apply `content-box` to all four sides while `content-box 2em / padding-box 4em` would apply `content-box` in the block axis and `padding-box` in the inline axis. The question then is whether `2em / padding-box 4em` is interpreted as using the default box (`padding-box` on non-replaced elements and `content-box` on replaced elements) in the block axis or being invalid. Sebastian -- GitHub Notification of comment by SebastianZ Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8381#issuecomment-1516957616 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 20 April 2023 21:15:58 UTC