- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 10:16:46 -0700
- To: Morten Stenshorne <mstensho@opera.com>
- Cc: Christian Biesinger <cbiesinger@google.com>, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thursday 2013-07-11 18:38 +0200, Morten Stenshorne wrote: > Doh, right, so that wasn't 100% helpful after all. :) I guess what's > interesting is what goes on in the block progression direction, > overflow-wise. Whatever happens to inline overflow probably isn't > interesting at all, right? > > Then again, there's also a different defintion of overflow-x and > overflow-y in a different spec - here: > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-box/#overflow > > This one is closer to what the browsers actually have implemented (if we > ignore prefixed 'paged-*' values in Webkit and Presto), and here the > computed values are required to agree on being either visible or > non-visible. With this spec it's straight-forward to do what the last > paragraph in chapter 10 of the CSS 2.1 spec says. The css3-box draft actually allows one of the values to be 'hidden' and the other to be 'visible'. I've never agreed to that (and I've objected to it at least once), and I don't think it represents WG consensus, though. The css-overflow draft doesn't allow that combination. And the interaction rules in css-overflow involving the new values are in "very early draft" stage, and haven't really been reviewed at all. -David -- 𝄞 L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ 𝄂 𝄢 Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ 𝄂
Received on Thursday, 11 July 2013 17:17:24 UTC