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 10:27:24 -0700
Message-Id: <72C450BF-4D36-4758-8FDB-C03FDFFB2313@gmail.com>
To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>

> On Mar 14, 2015, at 11:28 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. 

Sorry. The more I think about it, the more I realize this comment had to do with whether you would have 'overflow-y:fragment' or 'overflow-x:fragment' if you wanted a different value for the opposite direction.

If overflow:fragment is not practical for other reasons (which is disappointing, because it seems like such a beautiful idea), then I guess this doesn't matter, and 'overflow-inline' and 'overflow-stacking' (or whatever we're using for padding-, border-, and margin-) would be fine.

Sorry for sounding flustered on the call today. I wasn't well prepared for speaking about this, and there was an echo, and I kept forgetting property names such as 'writing-mode'. 
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2015 17:27:56 UTC

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