W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2016

Re: [mediaqueries] overflow-block/inline

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 23:53:57 -0500
To: Florian Rivoal <florian@rivoal.net>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <56CE88E5.9020701@inkedblade.net>
On 02/07/2016 10:19 PM, Florian Rivoal wrote:
>> On Feb 6, 2016, at 03:25, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
>> While I'm sympathetic to the differences between block and inline overflow,
>> and it may indeed be necessary sometimes to query them independently,
>> I think it's probably easier for authors if we provide a simple 'overflow'
>> query:
>> overflow: none | scroll | scroll-page | page
>> where the author assumption is that if it's 'page', then there's no
>> inline scrolling, although the UA may allow it.
>> Also, I suggest the following renamings:
>> paged -> page for grammatic consistency with scroll
>> optional-paged -> scroll-page because it does both, it's not just paging
> I think overflow-inline is secondary to overflow-block, so picking favorites
> and calling overflow-block overflow may be reasonable.
> But whether we want it now or later, the inline direction also has differences,
> and they are not reliably guessed from the block direction. Block scroll does
> not necessarily imply inline scroll, nor does block page necessarily imply a
> lack of inline scrolling. For instance:
> * A unix terminal or a roll printer are scroll in the block direction,
>    but not in the inline direction
> * an interactive ebook reader can be paged in the block direction, while still
>    offering a scrolling metaphor in the inline direction if something overflows.
> I don't have a big issue prioritizing one over the other, or working on the naming,
> but I don't think we can drop the overflow-inline aspect entirely and still cover
> the problem space.

Okay. I think we should prioritize the block overflow aspect, then,
and give it an easy-to-use name. :)

Making assumptions about inline overflow is of course not perfectly
accurate--I'm not saying it is--but definitely not as significant
from an authoring perspective. I would even go so far as to suggest
that it be deferred until there is some demand for it, but I wouldn't
object to leaving it in the draft.

Received on Thursday, 25 February 2016 04:54:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:00 UTC