- From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2023 03:44:21 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> If we use a box for overflow clipping, we would very likely also want to use the same box to trigger position fallback. Yeah, I definitely agree. I'm talking about an *additional* clip - in addition (and maybe by default?) clip to the scrollers between the anchor-scroll element and them as well. Multiple values for the clipping property (which we should move to an `anchor-*` name rather than `position-fallback-*` name, probably `anchor-clip`). Like, `anchor-clip: none | [ fallback || scroll ]`? Meaning "clip to the position-fallback-bounds elements and/or the scroll containers of the scroll-anchor element". Initial value `scroll`? Or maybe `none`, hm. > Imagine if someone wants to use the intersection of the ancestor scrollers of the anchor to trigger position fallback... I don't think *fallback* with the scrollers is necessary; the intermediate scrollers don't have any particular reason to be *layout-relevant* to the positioned element, they're just ways to hide the anchor and thus things that the positioned element probably wants to be hidden by as well. -- GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7758#issuecomment-1588477423 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 13 June 2023 03:44:23 UTC