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

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

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 05:56:48 -0700
Message-Id: <7D8E8D5C-E460-46B0-8CF3-81759553B815@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>

> On Mar 18, 2015, at 5:14 AM, Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net> wrote:
> 
> 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).

My main difference then is that I find the reasons less compelling for moving them into a new property, instead of fixing -x/-y to work better with the new values. I think for the author it is better to have one property. The values are different things, sure, but they don't overlap (a box either overflows or fragments, not both, at least in the block stacking direction). 

Fixing -x/-y AND integrating the fragmentation values into the same overflow property is a double win for the author. Having two properties to set how a box either overflows or fragments is more complicated and confusing. It is also more limiting, if fragmenting means an author cannot control overflow in the other direction.
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2015 12:57:18 UTC

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