- From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kanghaol@oupeng.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 06:04:34 +0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
(2013/10/14 5:37), Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > 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. You said clip-mask :), but OK, this is clip-path: rectangle(0, 0, 100%, 100%); >> 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. When I said "a shorthand of", I should have said "does what ... does", not in the sense of "shorthand in property expansion". CSS, as a powerful language, of course have lots of 'property A: value A'/'property B: value B' pairs that do the same things. When a Web developer uses 'overflow: hidden', as far as I can tell, he/she has one of two possible intensions: * clip-path: rectangle(0, 0, 100%, 100%) / mask: image(white) ; * min-height: contain-floats; These two are both too long to type, I think. I am suggesting we replace the first with 'overflow: clip' and convey the message that we think it's better than 'overflow: hidden' (do we think so? why and why not?). I don't have a idea for the second. Perhaps it isn't a common case. Actually, the first is not right because 'rectangle' refers to the border edge. I guess I agree with Alan in that the specs should be more coordinated. Cheers, Kenny -- Web Specialist, Opera Sphinx Game Force, Oupeng Browser, Beijing Try Oupeng: http://www.oupeng.com/
Received on Sunday, 13 October 2013 22:05:02 UTC