RE: [CSS Regions] Update available

It is tempting to use overflow property but there is a couple of reasons not to. Hyatt showed one (overflow has two dimensions, but only one dimension is forwarded to next container).

Another reason is "overflow" describes how to deal with content of the element that doesn't fit in its box. However in this case the content doesn't actually belong to the element. It comes from an entirely different source, and the nature of this indirection is not overflow but rather redirection. If "overflow" was used to define that it would be semantically incorrect and confusing as hell.

-----Original Message-----
From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Brad Kemper
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2011 4:09 PM
To: Tab Atkins Jr.
Cc: Arno Gourdol; www-style@w3.org
Subject: Re: [CSS Regions] Update available

On Mar 31, 2011, at 2:37 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> 3. In general, this seems like it's just an overflow capability.  Can 
> we bodge this ability into 'overflow' instead of creating a new 'flow'
> property?  

I was thinking the same. It certainly feels like an overflow situation, if content doesn't fit all in one box, then overflow it to another. If the second box already has content, then join the two text flows together with a space character. This could potentially be a good way of providing fallback, with boxes and content already exiting (instead of tying too closely to slots feature).

> This might not be a good idea, actually; it would mean that if you 
> want to, for example, shift all of <body>'s contents into a slot, you 
> have to set 'overflow' appropriately and then set "height:0", which 
> sounds weird.

I wouldnt do it like that. I'm not that hip on the slots thing, as I think there are these other layout modules  for subdividing the body (or other container) into multiple boxes. The overflow would then just be on those sub boxes.

Received on Thursday, 31 March 2011 23:35:48 UTC