- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 17:09:55 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 05/23/2016 04:02 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Sebastian Zartner > <sebastianzartner@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 23 May 2016 at 19:48, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Sure there is. For example, animating from 1scrollbar to 0 needs the >>> intermediate values. >> >> Ok, animation could be a use case. Though is there actually a use case >> for using the scrollbar size in animations? > > Of course; animating padding to/from 0 is a generic use-case. ... this seems rather contrived here. >>> Or wanting to pad the area out a little bigger >>> than the scrollbar width, so 1.2scrollbar or something. >> >> As the scrollbar size is something out of control of the author, they >> probably would rather use a calc() expression in that case like e.g. >> calc(scrollbar + 5px). > > Maybe, or maybe not. People often use something that looks reasonable > rather than something absolutely perfect/well-reasoned, and bumping up > to a higher multiple of the scrollbar size can easily achieve > reasonable results for "a little more padding there, the text is a > little too close to the scrollbar". Same as people simply using a > slightly higher 'em' value rather than explicitly busting out a calc() > to add a set number of pixels to an existing length. This is okay > behavior! Authors want to control spacing pretty exactly in most cases. I can see wanting "match the scrollbar size" but not "match the scrollbar size plus 2%". You can add on 2px or whatever seems appropriate -- I can't think of a reason why you'd want it as a percentage of the scrollbar size. ~fantasai who would like to see a layout that needs this, that can't otherwise be solved with an invisible variant of 'overflow: scroll'
Received on Monday, 23 May 2016 21:10:26 UTC