- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:37:46 -0700
- To: robert@ocallahan.org
- CC: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, www-style@w3.org
On 08/17/2010 02:56 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 11:44 PM, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com > <mailto:howcome@opera.com>> wrote: > > If we go with (b), I suggest, well, I don't suggest we do that. > Clipping makes more sense, no? > > I'm not convinced. CSS defaults to overflow:visible and generally > clipping only occurs when the author requests it somehow. > > I also think that clipping column rules vertically would be less useful > than letting them be the height of the columns, and I think that > horizontal clipping would not be a particularly useful, so I favour not > clipping. I think that column rules should be the height of the column box. I also think that content should be able to overflow the column box, e.g. if we have a height-constrained column, then content that is too tall should overflow the column box (and thus be taller than the column rule). If we're balancing columns, then the column boxes should the balanced height. So, in some cases the column rule will be "clipped" with respect to the content, and in some cases it will match the height of the content and in some cases it will be shorter. But I think this makes sense and gives a straightforward model for implementation. (Consider, for example, a overly tall non-breakable float and text wrapped along its side -- the bottom of the column box should be at the height constraint, but the float would be overflowing.) ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2010 22:38:23 UTC