On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote: > On Tue Dec 10 2013 at 5:33:25 PM, Charles Walton <charleswalton@google.com> > wrote: > >> If criteria 2 + 3 (the scroll-related ones) are removed, I don't see a >> big benefit in expanding the syntax beyond the current "none | strict" >> values. Being said, I'm not sure I fully understand the impact of those new >> generated content properties. >> > > The point of the expanded syntax I proposed is precisely to allow the > scroll-related ones to still be available, if you need them. > > >> Also, are there any problems with SVG-esque stuff, like imported clip >> paths? Say "#shape" was defined within a "contain: strict" element - could >> it be referenced outside that element? >> > > That is a good question. Probably no, I would think. Levi, Ojan, > thoughts? > Very late to this. It's not clear to me what should happen here. My intuition is that we'd want to disallow this. The things contain:strict is trying to achieve are style recalculation and layout isolation. So, in this case, laying out the contents of the contain:strict element would require first laying out the #shape element. It could be made to work, but I'm not sure we'd want to.
Received on Thursday, 13 February 2014 00:33:40 UTC