- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 14:37:14 -0700
- To: "Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu" <kanghaol@oupeng.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAWBYDD_LvOFTLdWQ3WQP899k-3iL+qQzcVD9_iwmiijic4ycw@mail.gmail.com>
On Oct 13, 2013 5:15 PM, "Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu" <kanghaol@oupeng.com> wrote: > > (2013/10/14 4:50), Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > > There's nothing particularly wrong with having a value that just clips > > without the possibility of scrolling, so that it doesn't need to establish > > a BFC, is just not what I'm going for with my draft. > > > > Assuming that clip-mask doesn't establish a BFC (I don't have easy access > > to a real computer to check it right now) then it'll work for your > > purposes, using the rectangle() function. > > I don't know if we can successfully extend 'clip' to non-abspos elements > and you are right that 'mask' doesn't establish a BFC. I said clip-path, not clip. The former doesn't have the latter's legacy works, but is otherwise identical. > What I am asking is to make 'overflow: clip' (not this 'isolate' > feature) a shorthand of 'mask: image(white)'. No new functionality, but > I have doubts that the latter would take off. Also, with this, the > fallback is easier: > > overflow: hidden; > overflow: clip; > > I don't mean to conflate these two features, but I think this is worth > sorting out. We try to avoid doing that kind of weird shorthanding unless there's a very good reason, usually legacy related. It makes the language more difficult to understand, and it's bad enough as it is. ~TJ
Received on Sunday, 13 October 2013 21:37:41 UTC