- From: Rainer Åhlfors <rahlfors@wildcatsoftware.net>
- Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 15:30:53 -0700
- To: "'Eli Friedman'" <sharparrow1@yahoo.com>
- Cc: <www-style@w3.org>
In other words, there needs to be a distinction in the spec to indicate that the "invisible" portion of the content is not to behave as affected by "visibility: hidden", but rather as "overflow: hidden". Not causing scroll when clipped seems reasonable enough. However, the question then becomes what should happen if you clip the top/left sides? <style> .parent {overflow: auto; position: relative; height: 100px; width: 100px} .child {background: blue; position: absolute; clip: rect(50px, 100px, 100px, 50px); width: 200px; height: 200px;} </style> <div class=parent> <div class=child></div> </div> Should the clipped box now be shifted to the left and up accordingly? Rainer -----Original Message----- From: Eli Friedman [mailto:sharparrow1@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 3:15 PM To: rahlfors@wildcatsoftware.net Cc: www-style@w3.org Subject: RE: Expected overflow behavior for element with clip set? That's about right; the specification isn't really clear about what to do, which is why I'm bringing it up here instead of just changing the bahavior. If the correct behavior was clear, there would be no need to discuss it. -Eli --- Rainer Åhlfors <rahlfors@wildcatsoftware.net> wrote: > > I just want to make sure we are clear with regards > to any future discussion, > and differentiating between browser bugs (as in, > incorrect implementation of > spec in browser) and undesired browser behavior (as > in, spec is vague or > unclear, causing expected user behavior not to align > with spec, as is the > case with this scenario). > > > Rainer > > -----Original Message----- > From: Boris Zbarsky [mailto:bzbarsky@MIT.EDU] > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 12:19 PM > To: rahlfors@wildcatsoftware.net > Cc: www-style@w3.org > Subject: Re: Expected overflow behavior for element > with clip set? > > Rainer Åhlfors wrote: > > the spec as written today supports the behavior of > the browsers. Hence, it > is > > not a browser bug. > > No one ever claimed it's a browser bug. The mail > you were responding to > was a comment on the spec, not on implementations. > > -Boris > > > ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Cheap talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. http://voice.yahoo.com
Received on Friday, 2 March 2007 22:30:17 UTC