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

Re: [css-overflow-clipping] would 'overflow: clip' affect the layout of surrounding elements?

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2013 14:37:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDD_LvOFTLdWQ3WQP899k-3iL+qQzcVD9_iwmiijic4ycw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu" <kanghaol@oupeng.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:51:03 UTC