- From: Rick Byers <rbyers@chromium.org>
- Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2015 17:16:12 -0400
- To: Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com>
- Cc: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFUtAY_vKEebiUchNqdLOkoS9U9OZmaJD9eh5VyRbOMoXvYDCA@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Simon Pieters <simonp@opera.com> wrote: > On Mon, 13 Apr 2015 21:20:42 +0200, Rick Byers <rbyers@chromium.org> > wrote: > > What do you think the behavior should be for a document in quirks mode >>> when the body element has an associated scrolling box? In that case >>> there >>> is really NO viewport scrolling element (setting body.scrollTop changes >>> the >>> body element's scroll position, and documentElement.scrollTop is defined >>> to >>> be always 0). >>> >>> Your current wording says document.scrollingElement should be 'body' in >>> this case, but null feels more logical (and slightly simplifies >>> implementation and probably the ultimate spec wording of scrollTop etc.). >>> However it might be more convenient for libraries that want to assume >>> there's some scrollingElement if we returned body in this case. WDYT? >>> >>> >> Ping. >> >> I'm implementing this case as 'null' in blink at the moment (but won't >> ship >> it until we reach consensus here of course). It really does seem to make >> the most sense to me. I believe it allows the spec text (and therefore >> implementation) of all the other Element scrolling APIs to be strictly of >> the form: "If this == document.scrollingElement then operate on the >> viewport else operate on this". Also returning null in this case is the >> only way to guarantee that >> document.scrollingElement.scrollTop===window.scrollY (either true or >> throws). >> > > Yeah, it should be null to match scrollTop's behavior. This was an > oversight. > > https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/commit/ad098d66cfc02a4952e8af2eeea742 > c520d10c2b Perfect, thanks! > -- > Simon Pieters > Opera Software >
Received on Monday, 13 April 2015 21:17:00 UTC