On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > Yup - if it's possible to scroll, then we have to (a) pay attention to > the elements "below the fold", even if they'd otherwise be ignorable, > and (b) paint at least some of the off-screen stuff, so that it'll be > smooth if you start scrolling. > That's only true for elements that are themselves visible, or nearly visible. I think we could drop this requirement. I agree with Simon that the text is ambiguous. Instead of "An element that is strictly contained operates under the following restrictions:", I would say > An element that is strictly contained has the following restrictions > applied to it by the user-agent: > 1. The contents of the element are clipped to the element’s content box. etc In part 1 you should be more clear about "contents". Presumably the contents of an element don't include its border, for example, but this is unclear. I believe restrictions 2 and 3 should be dropped. Rob -- Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o Whhei csha iids teoa stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d 'mYaonu,r "sGients uapr,e tfaokreg iyvoeunr, 'm aotr atnod sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t" uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n? gBoutt uIp waanndt wyeonut thoo mken.o w
Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2013 03:36:58 UTC