- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 08:15:28 -0800
- To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Cc: Charles Walton <charleswalton@google.com>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Ojan Vafai <ojan@google.com>
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: > 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. Yes, but still. The scrolling restrictions come from requests on our end. ccing Ojan for an elaboration on the reasoning. > 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 Sure. > 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'm not sure how to more clearly talk about contents. > I believe restrictions 2 and 3 should be dropped. Let's let some of the engineers that asked me for this restriction to chime in first. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2013 16:16:19 UTC