W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2013

Re: [css-containment] ED of Containment ready for review (was overflow:clip)

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 16:36:30 +1300
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLbhJGwAiO5Q0PiwkGor3FbNEz9KNkfa_ADrtpk2rRQpKA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Charles Walton <charleswalton@google.com>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
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

> 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.


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

I believe restrictions 2 and 3 should be dropped.

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:37 UTC