- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@iinet.net.au>
- Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 13:17:13 +1000
- To: W3C Style List <www-style@w3.org>
Andrew Fedoniouk wrote: > overflow:none has a clear logical sense (for me): in no circumstances box > width or/and box height will be less than its content - read: will never > overflow. It doesn't make any sense because the overflow:none would be affecting the height/width of a box which is the job for the height and width properties, whereas, currently, 'overflow' only affects how content outside the box is rendered. What would happen with the following code? p { max-height: 2em; max-width: 5em; overflow: none; } ... <p>This is a long paragraph, that requires a box bigger than the 'max-height' and 'max-width' properties allows...</p> The 'max-height' and 'max-width' properties say *do not* create a box bigger than 10em x 2em, but the overflow property says *do not* create a box smaller than the height/width required by the content. So, since the paragraph would obviously need a much bigger box than 10em x 2em, it would seem that the max-height and -width properties are now conflicting with the overflow property, thus what height would the box be? To me, an intrinsic value for the height/width properties would make much more sense. -- Lachlan Hunt
Received on Monday, 17 May 2004 23:17:51 UTC