- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 11:31:27 +0200
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: "www-style\@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Scott Johnson <sjohnson@mozilla.com>
L. David Baron wrote: > > "Floated or in-flow content that extends into column gaps (e.g., long > > words or images) is clipped in the middle of the column gap." > So the thread so far has focused on the splitting behavior. But the > key question about the spec text Scott quoted isn't the splitting > behavior, it's the clipping behavior. Does the above quoted > sentence imply that any vertical clipping happens, or not? > > (Interpreted literally, it doesn't, but it's not clear to me that > that's what was intended; it's a very loosely formulated sentence > that doesn't describe its intent or mechanism very carefully. The main purpose of the sentence, as I see it, is to avoid overlapping content in adjacent columns. When setting, say, the number of columns to 3 and not thinking about narrow screens, a designer is likely to cause long words to overlap. So, I'd say that the sentence is accurate enough, if somewhat asymmetrical. > I think the definition needs to be described in a way that aligns > well with the definition of painting order in Appendix E of CSS 2.1. > > For example, this definition implies that an extra wide relatively > positioned element (even with z-index) is clipped, but absolutely > positioned descendants of that rel-pos element are *not* clipped > (even though this rel-pos element is their containing block, and if > it has z-index, also their stacking context). Implementing that > correctly requires a huge amount of implementation complexity, for > no value that I can see. Would excepting relpos content from clipping make it easier? Like the proposed text in this message: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Aug/0526.html -h&kon Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Monday, 26 August 2013 09:32:07 UTC