W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2009

Re: Shadows vs. layout

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 14:17:00 -0700
Message-Id: <99E9E54A-C05A-434E-824F-6BD09C8D1043@gmail.com>
To: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, W3C style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 3, 2009, at 1:05 PM, David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com> wrote:

> If you consider the vertical overflow case, it really doesn't make  
> sense to cut off the shadows (and in fact it could look visually  
> ugly to do so).  There's no reason to.  I understand the desire to  
> avoid horizontal scrollbars, but I don't think the vertical case  
> should be compromised just to accommodate the horizontal case,

I diagree with this too. I've had designs before in which a precise  
amount of padding separated solid-colored elements from the edges with  
a consistent width band of white. Now you are suggesting that the  
white page background should extend below that if there is something  
with a shadow position near that edge, and that is just the wrong  
thing to do.

> and I hate the idea of the engine having to track two completely  
> separate overflow concepts.  This is a really nasty implementation  
> burden to have to bear.
> You're basically asking WebKit to take its unified concept of  
> overflow and break it up into two separate types of overflow.

I can't immediately see why treating the right and bottom edges the  
same as the top and right (with respect to overflowing visual effects  
that ate not supposed to affect layout) is burdonsome.

> I also don't think it's as simple as just throwing a sentence into  
> the shadows section.  Two other examples (glyphs and border images)  
> have been brought up as well.  WebKit also has its own custom text  
> stroking CSS properties, which are somewhat similar to the glyph  
> problem.

Good points. Also there is 'outline'.

> We're talking about really changing the definition of what overflow  
> is here and breaking it up into two categories.  If this is really  
> how people want to proceed, I think we'd need better defined  
> language in the actual overflow section of the CSS spec to explain  
> how the two types of overflow work.

Seems reasonable.

> Especially in the vertical case, though, the idea of not being able  
> to scroll to shadows or border images or glyphs that spill out  
> really doesn't feel right to me.

It really doesn't feel right to me as an author the way it is now.

Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 21:17:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:38 UTC