- From: Matt Rakow <marakow@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2015 20:36:30 +0000
- To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Perhaps " An element with a used value of 'auto' or 'scroll' for its overflow property"? > -----Original Message----- > From: Simon Fraser [mailto:smfr@me.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 1:22 PM > To: Matt Rakow > Cc: www-style@w3.org > Subject: Re: [css-snappoints] 3/5 Updated ED > > > > On Mar 10, 2015, at 12:38 PM, Matt Rakow <marakow@microsoft.com> wrote: > > > > To toggle snapping on the container the author can set the scroll-snap-type to "none" on the container, this avoids modifying all descendants. > > Ah right, sounds good. > > > > > The overflow:auto scenario is a good point, since the spec as written currently implies that the snap points would be attached to the nearest ancestor that actually has overflowed content. I think this is most easily avoided/resolved by changing the definition of scroll container to be "An element with a used value for the overflow property other than 'visible'" - what do you think? > > Hmm, the problem with that is it prevents elements nested inside overflow:hidden boxes from snapping in their ancestor scrolling container, and I think that’s a pretty common scenario. > > Simon >
Received on Tuesday, 10 March 2015 20:37:05 UTC