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

RE: [css-snappoints] 3/5 Updated ED

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>
Message-ID: <BY2PR03MB3615BE2B4B9C4DC3C002945AD180@BY2PR03MB361.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
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

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