- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:32:32 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
Summary:
- Multicol has been published
- Flexbox and Image Values to be published as FPWD
- RESOLVED: accept that overflow: visible does not allow
replaced content to overflow
css3-background and css3-page to be updated
====== Full minutes below ======
Present:
David Baron
Bert Bos
Arron Eicholz
Elika Etemad
Sylvain Galineau
Daniel Glazman?
Alex Mogilevsky
Peter Linss
<RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2009/07/01-CSS-irc
Agenda
------
Bert: Multicol has already been published
<dbaron> Regrets: Øyvind Stenhaug, Anne van Kesteren, Dave Singer,
Tona Henderson, Håkon Wium Lie, Steve Zilles,
César Acebal, Molly Holzschlag
<arronei> I'm here on IRC and will be on the call in 5 minutes or so
dbaron: Any status on publishing flexbox?
ACTION: Bert publish flexbox as FPWD
Bert notes that lots of people are on holiday, but he will try to
get that done
<glazou> phone span, sorry for the noise
CSS3 Image Values
-----------------
<fantasai> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/
<Zakim> +[Microsoft]
<dbaron> Zakim, [Microsoft] has alexmog
<Zakim> +alexmog; got it
<dbaron> I'm ok with publishing
RESOLVED: Publish css3-images as FPWD
ACTION: Bert publish css3-images as FPWD
Anonymous Table Boxes
---------------------
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2009AprJun/0184.html
fantasai sent a request for Opera, Microsoft, and Apple to contact
their engineers and collect feedback on Boris Zbarsky's anonymous
table box generation proposal and testcases
fantasai: I don't think we can productively discuss this ourselves,
we should get feedback from the engineers who are working on it
fantasai: and have that feedback sent to www-style
Peter suggests we set a deadline for hearing back, perhaps two or four weeks
fantasai: four weeks should be plenty... that's the 23rd
<dbaron> four weeks is the 29th
ACTION: arron send feedback on anonymous table boxes to www-style
<fantasai> anne?
ACTION: Peter send emails to Opera and Apple requesting feedback on
anonymous table boxes from their engineers
IPTV
----
fantasai: I'm happy to leave that to the chairs.
fantasai: dsinger wrote a very nice template you should be able to use
border-radius and overflow on replaced elements
-----------------------------------------------
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Jun/0115.html
Hyatt's comments on css3-background:
Looks good. To address dbaron's concern about overflow, we implemented
a very lightweight form of overflow:hidden for replaced elements that
doesn't allow programmatic scrolling, etc. All it does is clip. This
is kind of gross, however, as we now have two types of overflow:hidden
in the engine.
Form controls in WebKit also clip their contents anyway completely
independently of overflow.
The most elegant solution is probably just to say you always clip
replaced element contents to the curve even when overflow is visible.
I can't really think of any scenario where you'd want the contents of
a replaced element to spill out of the curve.
roc's comments on this issue:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Jun/0117.html
fantasai: So are people happy with always clipping replaced element
content to the curve?
<sgalineau> that is what I'd expect from a border, whatever its shape
dbaron: My one concern is Robert's comment on form controls
dbaron: for some replaced form controls, we might need to allow overflow
dbaron: e.g. on Mac the focus ring is this blue glow that overflows
fantasai: can we make an exception for form controls then?
Bert: Why are we doing this?
fantasai: because for authors, they would expect replaced elements to
clip to the curve when they specify one
fantasai: and because applying overflow: hidden triggers special
scrolling behavior in UAs like Mozilla and WebKit that they
don't want to have for images that don't need it
<sgalineau> fwiw, i don't expect replaced elements to stick out of
borders. i'd assume a designer want either the border to
clip or expand around the element but not cause an ugly
overflow...
Bert is concerned that we are introducing different behavior for
replaced elements and other elements
fantasai explains that from an authors point of view, given that most
of the time content fits within its border box and that border-radius
clips the background, replaced elements are just acting weird if they
don't clip to the curve
<sgalineau> what happens if overflow:visible is set on a replaced element
with a border ?
Bert: we'll need css3-page to be updated to not imply that replaced
elements can overflow their border box
fantasai: yes
fantasai: I'll need to update css3-page to say that
<fantasai> sgalineau, right now nothing happens
<fantasai> sgalineau, setting other values of overflow also doesn't do
anything
<sgalineau> so then i wouldn't expect overflow:hidden behavior to be an
issue...?
<fantasai> sgalineau, because right now replaced elements never overflow
their border
<fantasai> sgalineau, but with border-radius and image-fit this becomes
possible
<sgalineau> I prefer keeping the current behavior; it's consistent and,
i think, what authors expect
<sgalineau> i.e. clipping
<fantasai> the currently-specified behavior allows overflow, it is not
clipping.
<fantasai> The proposal is to require clipping
<fantasai> except in cases where the UA determines it to be necessary not
to, e.g. form controls
dbaron: my personal preference would be to require authors to specify
overflow: hidden if they want this behavior
dbaron: if we only end up with it in the case where authors request it,
it's not that huge of a perf issue
dbaron: creating it by default for every image is expensive
sylvain: I would not expect a replaced element to overflow its border,
at least by default, that just seems weird
sylvain: If I put a border on an image or a video or anything ...
Sylvain: As an author, I might set a border and put an image inside it
or set an image and put a border around it, but I wouldn't
expect to have a border and the image overflow the border
dbaron: I don't think we can implement this in time for CR
peter: I'm uncomfortable with special-casing things
peter: currently you can't make it overflow, what about in the future?
peter: we're introducing new properties that cause overflow
sylvain: ... why do we want these new properties introduce the ability
to overflow for these elements?
sylvain: Did we have authors complaining about not being able to overflow
replaced elements before this?
Peter: it's just an implementation artifact
sylvain: FWIW I'm just more comfortable with the existing behavior
remaining where it was, i.e. no overflow
Sylvain: Rather than requiring people to specify extra properties
Sylvain: Especially since there seems to be no demand or use case
scenario for it
Sylvain: Rounding the border shouldn't cause overflow, I just would
not expect that
<sgalineau> I just would not expect that styling the border differently
would affect overflow.
Peter: Why can't we just require people to set overflow: hidden
Bert: CSS2 currently says that overflow doesn't apply to replaced
element, it would be easy to keep it that way
Bert imagines someone creating a map with a small viewport with scrollbars
Peter is averse to special-casing things, but isn't going to hold
things up here for it
peter: we can always unwind it with further properties if necessary
RESOLVED: accept that overflow: visible does not allow replaced content
to overflow
Received on Thursday, 2 July 2009 18:33:28 UTC