W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2014

Re: padding lost in overflow

From: Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@chromium.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:21:37 -0800
Message-ID: <CAO9Q3iK6MotSyak_zuMaTqYxO4Y6=7fVnFY1zZ57zNtZCct7ag@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Mats Palmgren <mats@mozilla.com>, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 5:08 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> After thinking through it more, yeah, you're right.  We don't want to
>> *actually* mess with the boxes, but we *do* want to allow people to
>> use 'padding' for the end edges of their scrollable content the same
>> way they can with the start edges.
>>
>> So yeah, just growing the overflow area by the amount of the padding
>> along the end edges would work.
>>
>
> I'm not totally opposed to that idea, but there is still going to be
> confusion about what the padding box and content boxes of the scrolled
> element actually are --- in authors' minds, if not the spec. So I'm not
> convinced it's a clear win. I'd like to hear the opinions of more people.
>

I don't think authors are confused except that padding doesn't seem to do
anything once you use overflow: auto or scroll which is annoying since
authors want to add space at the bottom and can't. I suppose everyone just
ends up adding another wrapper element inside the overflow area to work
around the "browser being broken", that's certainly what I've observed (and
done myself).

- E
Received on Friday, 17 January 2014 01:22:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:38 UTC