Re: [CSS2.1] 9.5.1 Positioning the float: the 'float' property

On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 12:10 AM, L. David Baron wrote:
>  On Friday 2008-03-28 14:41 -0700, Alan Gresley wrote:
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Resize the browser window until the green element floated left is
>  > being hidden in the overflow container.
>  > Gecko 1.7~1.8 and Opera 9.5: Will show the blue element floated right
>  > vanishing into the overflow containers' left edge. The padding-right
>  > of the overflow container is shown to the right of the green element
>  > floated right. Opera also shows a bug of showing a mysterious extra
>  > space to the right of the green element.
>  Opera's extra space to the right seems like a bug; I don't see any
>  reason for it.  (Is the size of the extra space correlated with the left
>  padding, right padding, or one of the borders?)
>  > Gecko 1.9: Shows exactly the same as Gecko 1.7 and 1.8 but the
>  > padding-right is clipped from the overflow container. This clipping I
>  > have spoken about in my list messages.
>  I think the Gecko 1.8 behavior (having space for the padding past the
>  overflow) is probably preferable for authors, although as far as I can
>  tell the spec requires the Gecko 1.9 behavior (since the padding box
>  lives inside the border box and its size is not influenced by the
>  overflow).  It might be worth considering changing the spec here, but
>  looking at this issue requires looking at testcases that don't trigger a
>  whole bunch of other differences in behavior.

I agree with you that the padding right of that container should not
be at the right of the overflowing content. When there is also normal,
not overflowing content (like a width:auto child) the padding is
immediately to the right of this, and it should always stay there, not
be pushed to the right by the overflowing child.

However, the spec do not enter into the details of the scrolling mechanism.
So, once a browser determines that scrolling is necessary, if it
provides some more
amount of scrolling (to see past the overflowing content) is it
violating the current spec?
Unnecessary scrolling is usually bad, but in this case we can see it
as sort of 'courtesy' of the browser to provide extra amount of
scrolling equal to the container padding (without the need to say that
the padding is 'moved', or replicated.)

I know that the above is a too simplistic assertion, however at this
point I just have this question:
Are the current spec saying something about the 'amount' of scrolling
that UA must provide (of course, when overflow is scroll or auto) ?
It is reasonable to think that this should allow to see the 'most
overflowing' border box. Is this not explicitly mentioned simply
because it is obvious?


Bruno Fassino

Received on Saturday, 29 March 2008 06:37:44 UTC