Re: [css-overflow][css-overflow-3] logical overflow

> 
> On 14 Mar 2015, at 19:28, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I would like to propose a writing mode aware property of 'overflow-policy' (though I'm not married to that name). It would have two possible values: 'logical' or 'physical'. It would define whether 'overflow-x' overflowed in the horizontal direction ('physical', the initial value) or in the inline direction ('logical'). For 'overflow-y',  'logical' would overflow in the block stacking direction. Maybe influenced by 'flex-direction' too; I don't know. 
> 
> I'm sure something like this has been proposed before, but it doesn't seem to be in the overflow drafts, and I'm hoping it can be added, especially now that we are talking more about fragment overflow. 
> 
> An alternative would be to have 'overflow-inline' and 'overflow-stacking', but seems like it would be more complicated to specify and implement. I could be wrong. But with 'overflow-policy' there is just effect, without changing of computed values of 'overflow-x' or 'overflow-y' or creating shorthands with variable initial values or such. 

Hi,

I generally think that overflow-x and overflow-y should have been overflow-inline and overflow-block, but unfortunately, that ship has sailed, and I also agree with you that having both -x/-y and -inline/-block is confusing. So I am not opposed to a property like the one you suggest.

However, I was much more interested in either fixing -x/-y into -inline/-block or having a switch when the fragmentation values were part of the overflow property, since they are about what happens in the block direction.

As you know, they have now been moved off to a new property, called continue, with good reasons (TL;DR: overflow and fragmentation are different things. See https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2015Mar/0292.html).

For the traditional values (visible, hidden, scroll, auto), it can still be useful to think in terms of logical rather than physical directions, but the need is less pressing.

 - Florian

Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2015 12:14:49 UTC