- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:29:25 -0800
- To: Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@chromium.org>
- Cc: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>, 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 5:21 PM, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@chromium.org> wrote: > 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). Yeah, when the question comes up, you can just say "same as if overflow:hidden was used", because we're not doing anything odd to the box model. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 17 January 2014 01:30:12 UTC