- 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