Re: [css3-flexbox] overflow property

(12/05/15 3:44), fantasai wrote:
> On 05/14/2012 04:31 AM, Anton Prowse wrote:
>> On 13/05/2012 12:42, fantasai wrote:
>>> On 05/11/2012 06:18 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>>> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Morten Stenshorne<mstensho@opera.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Should the 'overflow' property apply to flexboxes? Implementations do
>>>>> support it, and I think it makes sense to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, the flexbox spec (20120510) says that "Flexboxes are not
>>>>> block
>>>>> containers", and CSS21 says that 'overflow' applies to block
>>>>> containers
>>>>> only.
>>>
>>> We could say "block containers and boxes that estabish a formatting
>>> context", but I'm not sure how that interacts with tables. The table
>>> box presumably establishes a table formatting context.
>>
>> Actually it works fine for tables, since the Applies To line for
>> 'overflow' should have been "block containers and table
>> boxes" anyway (see
>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15381 ).
>>
>> I support your proposed wording, but I think it ought to be
>> accompanied by a modification to 9.4 in which the term "formatting
>> context" is introduced, and to Chapter 17, as follows.
> 
> r=fantasai on all changes proposed :) Let's get these fixed.
> 
> ~fantasai
> 
> ====== All changes accumulated below for ease of reference ======
> 
> In 11.1.1 (Overflow), replace:
> 
>   | Applies to: block containers
> 
> with:
> 
>   | Applies to: block containers and boxes that establish a formatting
> context

I think we should fix

(12/05/11 20:58), Morten Stenshorne wrote:
> BTW: When it comes to "the other non-block container thing", namely
> tables, it looks like we have all agreed to honor overflow:hidden,
> while overflow:scroll and overflow:auto are treated as
> overflow:visible...

too since it has normative difference, and also decide on a direction as
to 'overflow:scroll/auto' applies to a flexbox or not.


Cheers,
Kenny

Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2012 02:21:39 UTC