- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 04:55:08 +0200
- To: robert@ocallahan.org
- Cc: Morten Stenshorne <mstensho@opera.com>, www-style <www-style@w3.org>
Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> > To me, it seems that paged overflow is a subset of the MS proposal. In
> > paged overflow, one would write:
> >
> > .container {
> > overflow: paged-x;
> > }
> >
> > while in the MS proposal you would write:
> >
> > .container {
> > overflow-x: auto;
> > overflow-y: hidden;
> > -ms-scroll-snap-type: mandatory;
> > -ms-scroll-snap-points-x: snapInterval(0%, 100%);
> > }
> >
> > So I don't understand why it's more work to do paged overflow.
> >
>
> Because pagination affects layout of the container's descendants --- they
> have to be paginated! Your two examples could lead to completely different
> layouts of the content.
But, don't you need to do pagination in order to address your original
use case? Otherwise, you could end up seeing the upper/lower half of a
line?
The issue can be address by adding line boxes to the union of possible
snap points, I guess.
But I still think pagination is a necessary step if we want the web to
compete with native apps. (And we do.)
-h&kon
Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Friday, 16 August 2013 02:55:46 UTC