- From: Robert Hogan <robhogan@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 18:10:20 +0000
- To: www-style@w3.org, David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Message-ID: <CAD1xn+OkESHmCtozMqsBBQBy62R6oVOYiGqe2X6_QhscNy7LDw@mail.gmail.com>
HI all, Could I get some direction on this? Is the exclusion of tables from overflow-x and overflow-y by confining them to block-containers deliberate? Maybe I'm just being dumb and overflow-x and overflow-y can apply safely to the 'table wrapper box', it's just the table box inside it that's excluded by the language 'In CSS 2.2, a block-level box is also a block container box unless it is a table box or the principal box of a replaced element.' It's hard to tell what the intention is and I'd like to make Blink do the right thing here. Thanks, Robert On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 6:58 PM Robert Hogan <robhogan@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi there, > > Per https://drafts.csswg.org/css-overflow-3/#overflow-properties > overflow, overflow-x and overflow-y only apply to block containers in > CSS2 land. To me, this means that the resolution of conflicting > overflow-x and overflow-y values is either undefined or UAs shouldn't > allow overflow-x/overflow-y to be specified for tables in the first > place. It looks like everyone does allow the latter so is the next > best step to define in css-overflow the resolution everyone currently > uses in practice, which is to resolve 'hidden' to 'visible' if x and y > conflict? > > Thanks, > Robert >
Received on Monday, 19 October 2015 18:11:01 UTC