- From: Khushal Sagar via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 20:58:59 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
This sounds fine to me from an implementation perspective. Especially with the resolution we had at #8561, there is already precedent for the natural image size (as exposed to authors via `object-view-box`) to be different from what is actually rendered by the browser. I'm curious though, are we going with the scrollable overflow rect because ink overflow is undefined? If another feature on the platform (like IntersectionObserver) required us to define the ink overflow extent, would we still use scrollable overflow? We could just not expose `object-view-box` to authors at all. The natural image size can then be the ink overflow rect and the exact value will stay an internal UA detail. The motivation for exposing it is the assumption that authors would want to customize based on that data. So we should expose the value which authors would actually use, and maybe that is scrollable overflow rect. Just want to ensure that what we choose is based on what makes sense to authors, not based on ink overflow being undefined on the platform today. -- GitHub Notification of comment by khushalsagar Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8597#issuecomment-1487583472 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 28 March 2023 20:59:00 UTC