- 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