Re: overflow and list-items

On Jan 13, 2009, at 6:21 PM, fantasai wrote:

> Brad Kemper wrote:
>> I always thought it would make the most sense to treat the marker  
>> as though it was position:absolute within (and relative to) the LI,  
>> with a negative LEFT value and auto TOP and BOTTOM. In that case,  
>> it would not affect the line-height, would not take up space, would  
>> not be affected by the horizontal scroll position (but would be  
>> affected by the vertical scroll position). I was thinking that it  
>> would be visible outside the scrollbox of the UL or OL, but it  
>> looks like not: even though it is out of the flow, it is still  
>> clipped by its overflow container, even when overflow-x is supposed  
>> to be visible.
>> I've posted some samples of what I mean here:
>> http://bradclicks.com/cssplay/scrolling%20lists.html
>
> The discussion isn't about setting overflow on <ol>, but rather of
> setting overflow on <li>. <ol> isn't special in CSS, it's just another
> block. <li> elements, however, are display: list-item.
>
> ~fantasai

Thanks for responding (I though I wrote that in late July, but I don't  
see it in the archive thread view).

Yes, I realize that...

I've tried to simulate the LI items and markers by other means, as a  
way to model how the markers of "display:list-item" can be can be  
explained using non-list-item CSS, and therefore, perhaps, inform the  
way they should work in the LI overflow situation. I also had hoped it  
would help inform the separate discussion about how various style  
property values of the "::marker" pseudo-element would work.

But the model fails a bit when the vanilla OL block gains a vertical  
scrollbar of its own, and that seemed to limit the applicability of  
the model until that could be explained. Thus I wrote about that  
first. In my example, I've set up a simulated OL as a regular DIV  
(nothing more than left margin and background color). But when that  
DIV has a vertical scroll bar (from overflow-y:auto), all the number  
markers disappear. There must be a reason for that, but I don't know  
what it is.

Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2009 03:12:00 UTC