- From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 19:15:22 +0200
- To: W3C www-style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>
- CC: www-style@gtalbot.org
On 11/03/2012 02:57, "Gérard Talbot" wrote: > Hello, > > Current text: > { > Generally, the content of a block box is confined to the content edges of > the box. In certain cases, a box may overflow, meaning its content lies > partly or entirely outside of the box > } > Overflow: 11.1 > http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visufx.html#overflow-clipping > > Proposed replacement: > { > Generally, the content of a block box is confined to the content edges of > the box. In certain cases, a box overflows, meaning its content lies > partly or entirely outside of the box > } > > s/box may overflow/box overflows > > > { > visible > This value indicates that content is not clipped, i.e., it may be > rendered outside the block box. > } > Overflow 11.1.1 > http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visufx.html#overflow > > > { > visible > This value indicates that content is not clipped, i.e., it can be > rendered outside the block box. > } > > s/it may be/it can be > > otherwise, add "<a href="x0">in some cases</a>, it will render outside the > block box.". > > "May" has a special meaning in the spec. I think the spec should avoid > using a "may" in those 2 sentences, otherwise it looks like, it suggests > that 'overflow: visible' is optional and not required by user agents for > compliance with the spec. I propose we don't make changes here in CSS21. Given the general tone of the spec, I don't think there's any real possibility of confusion (and I think changing "may" to "can" merely changes the problem instead of fixing it). Cheers, Anton Prowse http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Sunday, 20 May 2012 17:15:53 UTC