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

Re: [mediaqueries] overflow-block/inline

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 22:15:46 -0400
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <56F0AAD2.8000504@inkedblade.net>
On 03/02/2016 01:15 PM, Florian Rivoal wrote:
>
>> On Mar 2, 2016, at 18:37, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 02/29/2016 03:59 AM, Florian Rivoal wrote:
>>>
>>> That mail only suggests a better name for half the pair. Are you
>>> suggesting we keep overflow-inline as it is? I'm not sure that's
>>> great, since it makes overflow / overflow-inline look like a
>>> short-hand / long-hand pair, which they are not.
>>
>> Okay, how about combining them both into the same MQ
>>
>>   overflow: [ clip | scroll | scroll-page | page ] || [ clip-inline | scroll-inline ]
>>
>> Almost nobody will care about overflow-inline, so really want to
>> make that easy.
>
> Media features that can take more than one values aren't a thing that exist as of today.
> Do we want to introduce that for the sake of this?

Well, I would like the syntax subset of
   overflow: clip | scroll | scroll-page | page
to work, or at least something equally short and to the point, because
switching on block overflow methods is a straightforward, common, simple
use case that should have a straightforward, simple, easy-to-use syntax.
Almost nobody cares about querying inline-axis overflow.

Fwiw, I don't think we need to allow 'overflow: clip scroll-inline'
even if both 'overflow: clip' and 'overflow: scroll-inline' match.
Media queries are a bit different from style declarations in how
they are processed.

~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2016 02:16:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:01 UTC