Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-values] Use of 100vw is causing pointless horizontal scrollbars on some websites (#6026)

The CSS Working Group just discussed `[css-values] Use of 100vw is causing pointless horizontal scrollbars on some websites`, and agreed to the following:

* `RESOLVED: No change, keep with the existing resolution`

<details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary>
&lt;TabAtkins> iank_: I think now, with Bramus's data, this is likely fine<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> iank_: Bramus did a lot of analysis on it. still a little concerned, but someone can take the risk and see what happens<br>
&lt;fantasai> Bramus wins MVP of the issue! \^_^/<br>
&lt;fantasai> TabAtkins: When overflow is set on the root element (specifically; not body), we will take the scrollbars into account when calculating viewport unit sizes<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> iank_: Yes, specifying overflow:scroll on the root is sufficiently rare that people shouldn't run into this<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> iank_: Probably won't solve the general case on existing sites, but people can fix it moving forward<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> iank_: One caveat is that enterprise is always hidden in this type of analysis, so if someone rolls it out there might be a hidden part that changes our resolution<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> TabAtkins: +1<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> fantasai: Why didn't we want to do it for body propagation? Too common?<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> iank_: yes, I think itwould break way too many sites<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> fantasai: Other thing in the thread is having the dv* units respond to scrollbar<br>
&lt;astearns> previous resolution: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6026#issuecomment-1832443514<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> fantasai: So I guess it would make sense to say that dv* would respond to scrollbar...<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> TabAtkins: dv* units are always between small and large units, right now; we should be careful about losing that<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> astearns: I linked to the existing resolution that already covers this, this discussion is about us not undoing that<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> Rossen_: so keep no change?<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> Rossen_: Objections?<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> RESOLVED: No change, keep with the existing resolution<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> Rossen_: do we need something for the dv units?<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> fantasai: No, we should do that in a separate issue<br>
&lt;miriam> q+<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> miriam: do we also need, in the new issue, to mention CQ units?<br>
&lt;Rossen_> ack miriam<br>
&lt;TabAtkins> fantasai: would need to be a more separate issue<br>
</details>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6026#issuecomment-1982125916 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Thursday, 7 March 2024 00:37:27 UTC