Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[css-overflow] 'overflow-block' and 'block-overflow' are too similar #2561

Closed
Loirooriol opened this issue Apr 13, 2018 · 5 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@Loirooriol
Copy link
Collaborator

commented Apr 13, 2018

I am thinking that authors may get confused because the names are so similar, and will end up using the wrong one.

overflow-block follows the standard convention for logical properties, so maybe consider renaming block-overflow to something different.

@heycam

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Jun 30, 2018

In #2849 I wondered whether there is a word we can use in place of block that fits inline : text :: block : <something>, since block-overflow has similar behavior to text-overflow.

@frivoal frivoal added Agenda+ F2F and removed Agenda+ F2F labels Jul 1, 2018

@frivoal

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Jul 11, 2018

More than the property name, I have some reservations about the name of the 'clip' value, since it doesn't really clip anything and allows for (inline) overflow. It was named that way to keep the parallel with text-overflow, but I'm not sure this is working all that well (also this isn't really about overflow).

Alternate suggestion, attempting to address your concern and mine:
block-ellipsis: none | ellipsis | <string>
or maybe
block-ellipsis: none | auto | <string>

@rachelandrew

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

commented Aug 14, 2018

I'm just writing some docs for MDN on overflow so was thinking about this property in terms of how to explain it. I like block-ellipsis as a descriptive term, it seems to more accurately describe what this property is doing and avoids any confusion with overflow-block.

If it were block-ellipsis then none | ellipsis | <string> would make sense, as it is describing the appearance or not of an ellipsis as opposed to the clipping or otherwise of the content.

@frivoal

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented Aug 15, 2018

Agenda+ing to attempt to get a 3 part resolution:

  1. rename the property from block-overflow to block-ellipsis
  2. rename the auto value to none
  3. rename the ellipsis value to auto

I'm strongly in favor of 1 and 2, weakly in favor of 3.

@frivoal frivoal added the Agenda+ label Aug 15, 2018

@css-meeting-bot

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Aug 22, 2018

The Working Group just discussed 'overflow-block' and 'block-overflow' are too similar, and agreed to the following:

  • RESOLVED: Rename overflow to block-ellipsis. Rename auto to none. Rename ellipsis behavior to auto
The full IRC log of that discussion <dael> Topic: 'overflow-block' and 'block-overflow' are too similar
<dael> github: https://github.com//issues/2561
<fantasai> https://github.com//issues/2561#issuecomment-413144634
<dael> Rossen: florian is not here. Dunno if heycam or rachelandrew_ are here
<dael> fantasai: I'min favor of accepting proposal in last comment fwiw
<dael> Rossen: Other opinions?
<dael> rachelandrew_: I'd agree
<astearns> +1 to block-ellipsis
<dael> Rossen: Rename overflow to block-ellipsis. Rename auto to none. Rename ellipsis behavior to auto
<dael> rachelandrew_: Yes I agree [missed]
<dael> rachelandrew_: I agree and as Imentioned in comments I wrote docs for MDN and this seemed sensible way to explain it
<dael> Rossen: We can try and resolve. Objections to Rename overflow to block-ellipsis. Rename auto to none. Rename ellipsis behavior to auto
<dael> RESOLVED: Rename overflow to block-ellipsis. Rename auto to none. Rename ellipsis behavior to auto

frivoal added a commit to frivoal/csswg-drafts that referenced this issue Aug 24, 2018

@frivoal frivoal closed this in 20b15b4 Aug 24, 2018

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.