W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2015

Re: [cssom-view] Easing the transition to spec-compatible body scrollTop behavior

From: Rick Byers <rbyers@chromium.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 08:47:30 -0400
Message-ID: <CAFUtAY8xtBFuipDQXUP5A8kNd0czUo=ujZso7Ax5X=JdM5wtzA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
Cc: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 09 Apr 2015 13:14:27 +0200, Robert O'Callahan <
> robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
>
>  In most ways, the root element acts as the viewport element. So I think
>> scrollingElement would make more sense here.
>>
>
> OK. I'm fine with either name. Anyone else have opinions about the name?
> If not I'll change to scrollingElement.
>

I prefer scrollingElement as well (could use 'viewportScrollingElement' to
be pedantic, but that seems overly long).  Thanks!

Do you think the spec text for scrollTop/Left/Width/Height could now be
simplified by referring to the scrollingElement (rather than repeating the
rules for each API)?  That's probably how I'll implement it in blink.

* overflow/background use body->viewport if html has the initial values.
> Using either root or body works in any mode.
>
> * direction/writing-mode uses body->viewport (mostly, in implementations,
> but this is an open issue). Since they inherit, using either root or body
> works in any mode.
>
>
> --
> Simon Pieters
> Opera Software
>
Received on Thursday, 9 April 2015 12:48:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:30 UTC