- From: Tantek Çelik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:48:56 -0700
- To: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 05:52, Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com> wrote: > On 29/09/2011 6:54 PM, Tantek Çelik wrote: >> >> Through experience with both existing site use of text-overflow, and >> testing existing implementations[1], it's become clear that >> text-overflow with a single value must only apply to the end line >> edge, rather than to both left and right line edges. >> >> In particular, there are numerous sites that apparently depend on >> start edge ellipsing NOT occurring when there is a single value (e.g. >> cases where a negative text-indent is combined with left padding, thus >> causing overflow of the text, but not any rendering clipping). >> >> In addition, existing implementations (IE, Opera, Safari) consistently >> apply a singular text-overflow value to only the right edge for LTR >> text, and in most of those (IE, Safari) to only the left edge for RTL >> text. > > I would say this is far worst than you recognize Assuming you meant "worse". > (with regards to overflow, > WebKit and Gecko are more in agreement). BTW, LTR and RTL is 'inline base > direction' and is not exclusive to text. It encompasses 'inline base > direction' and has a direct relationship with 'block flow direction' (was > 'block progression'). Please see the introduction of the writing-mode WD [2] > for more details. Based on the input of one of the editors of that draft (fantasai), the CSS3-UI definition of text-overflow uses the phrase "inline progression direction". If you want to suggest a different term, I suggest you take it up with the writing-mode WD editors. Feel free to also suggest other prose corrections or improvements in the definition of text-overflow in CSS3-UI. >> Thus I've made the respective change in the CSS3-UI text-overflow section: >> >> from: a single value applying to both left and right edges >> to: a single value applying only to the end line edge. >> >> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-ui/#text-overflow >> >> Thanks, >> >> Tantek >> >> [1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=684266 > > Looking at the comments in that bug thread (epically by Boris [3]) and with > my own experimentation with ellipses, bidi, overflow (both direction and > block progression, the former is text overflow), I would say that it is not > an issue with ellipses but more an issue with overflow of any nature. To fix > ellipses handling on a broken overflow behavior will just cause more compat > issues in the future. Please state the specific compat issues you see occurring due to the specific changes made above. > > Please view this test case. > > http://css-class.com/test/css/overflow/block-inside-auto-width-float-overflow.htm Reviewed and thank you. I've collected this for future work when we're specifying overflow-x and overflow-y. > For the above test case, with the earlier examples, there seems to be either > WebKit/Gecko behavior or Opera/IE behavior. With the later examples, Opera > seems to have WebKit/Gecko behavior leaving IE alone with it's behavior. The behavior of the test cases in that file are far from clear as to what should/may happen. I'll have to take some time analyzing it to figure it out when I get to specifying overflow-x and overflow-y. > May I suggest that all CSS modules, implementations and the CSS WG start to > work towards a CSS3-overflow module instead of a collection of notes [4] for > planning, so overflow can be defined in one module (not defined in a myriad > of ways in many modules) so we can work towards interoperability between all > UAs. Feel free to add to that collection of notes in any way that you see improving them in the direction of a CSS3-overflow module. http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css3-overflow > Please see more in a future list message ... It may take me a while to setup a tachyon detector. ;) > regarding a new property that I > like to propose which is 'overflow-direction'. This is needed if UIs > consider showing bidirectionally of script or dual writing-modes (horizontal > and vertical) in a sensible way. Please add your 'overflow-direction' proposal directly to the wiki page instead, and send a URL to it instead: http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css3-overflow > 2. http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-writing-modes/#text-flow > 3. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=684266#c11 > 4. http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css3-overflow -Tantek
Received on Thursday, 29 September 2011 22:50:04 UTC