- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 15:39:57 -0800
- To: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com> wrote: > On 01/25/2013 03:13 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> Overflow definitely needs to apply, imo. > > Why, out of curiosity? If an author needs custom "overflow" behavior on > a flex container, wouldn't they be able to get that effect by wrapping > it in a block and styling the block with "overflow"? Why would the flex > container itself need to support overflow? I see no reason to require a wrapper just to swap between "visible" and "hidden". "scroll" actually requires a tiny bit of justification, because it's not trivial, but neither is it difficult. > For comparison: "overflow" doesn't have any effect on the <table> > element anywhere, nor does it apply to "display:inline" elements, and it > doesn't to <fieldset> in Gecko at least. 'overflow' not working on <table> (or at least <tbody>) is a persistent complaint among web devs. ^_^ 'overflow' on inlines would be difficult to conceive of, because they don't have a containing box. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 25 January 2013 23:40:44 UTC