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

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

From: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 14:29:03 +1100
Message-ID: <52A7DBFF.8030102@css-class.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Ojan Vafai <ojan@google.com>
CC: Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@chromium.org>, Levi Weintraub <leviw@chromium.org>, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>, Charles Walton <charleswalton@google.com>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 5/12/2013 12:09 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

> If we drop that, then I want to rework the value space a bit to
> explicitly call out what is being restricted, so that we can expand it
> in the future to allow authors to disallow scrolling as well.
> I think we can split the existing list into three values, "paint",
> "style", and "scroll":
> * "paint" would be #1, #4, and #5
> * "style" would be #6 and #7
> * "scroll" would be #2 and #3
> Thoughts?
> ~TJ

Should #4 read as follows:

   | The element must "establish" a containing block for
   | absolutely positioned and fixed positioned descendants.

Should #5 read as follows:

   | The element must "establish" a new block formatting contexts.

(For a while there, I was pondering what doesn't produce a formatting 
context while wondering why a BFC was not mentioned .. :-) then it clicked)

Does 'contain: strict' alter the position of boxes with auto offsets?


Alan Gresley
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2013 03:29:37 UTC

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