Closed
Bug 69355
Opened 24 years ago
Closed 21 years ago
scrolling = no and overflow:hidden both prevent ANY scrolling
Categories
(Core :: CSS Parsing and Computation, defect, P1)
Core
CSS Parsing and Computation
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla1.6alpha
People
(Reporter: rvj, Assigned: dbaron)
References
Details
(Keywords: css2, Whiteboard: [patch])
Attachments
(4 files)
1.18 KB,
text/html
|
Details | |
15.59 KB,
patch
|
bzbarsky
:
review+
bzbarsky
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
729 bytes,
application/vnd.mozilla.xul+xml
|
Details | |
29.57 KB,
patch
|
roc
:
review+
roc
:
superreview+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
In Mozilla 'scrolling=no' or 'overflow:hidden' not only hides the
scrollbars but also disables scrolling
I would also expect overflow:hidden to hide scrollbars but still allow
scrolling (by keyboard). I would expect to use scrolling=no if scrolling was
to be completely disabled.?
Is this correct? IE still allows scrolling even if scrollbars are hidden ( and
so once did Mozilla)
BTW
Does XUL support scrollBy, ScrollTo, pageYOffset, etc. If not what
methods/properties are available for programatically scrolling the contents of
XUL iframes?
PS was advised to assign to danm@netscape.com but assignment was rejected
Summary: scrolling = no and overflow:hidden both prevent scrolling → scrolling = no and overflow:hidden both prevent ANY scrolling
Comment 3•24 years ago
|
||
The CSS2 specification says for the overflow property:
hidden
This value indicates that the content is clipped and that no scrolling
mechanism should be provided to view the content outside the clipping region;
users will not have access to clipped content. The size and shape of the
clipping region is specified by the 'clip' property.
Note the "users will not have access to clipped content" part....
So it looks like we are doing the right thing here....
So I take it that under Mozilla it is not possible to have scripted page
scrolling without scrollbars ?
This seems a bit contradictory - ie autoscrolling pages where the scrollbars
have to be displayed even though they have no use?
I think under XUL I should be able to hide the scrollbars using XBL but then
XUL seems to lack any scripting support for scrolling (scrollBy, scrollTo,
pageYOffset, etc).
This appears to be a shortcoming in XUL iframes?? Should I file a bug on it?
PS
Comment 5•24 years ago
|
||
Marking INVALID.
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Closed: 24 years ago
Resolution: --- → INVALID
Comment 7•23 years ago
|
||
VERIFIED, although I think the DOM should allow for this, and I'll be working on
that for DOM3CSS.
Status: RESOLVED → VERIFIED
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•21 years ago
|
||
Taking.
Assignee: pierre → dbaron
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla1.6alpha
Assignee | ||
Updated•21 years ago
|
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•21 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Updated•21 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [patch]
Assignee | ||
Comment 11•21 years ago
|
||
We should do this per the latest revisions to CSS2.1, in particular:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-CSS21-20030915/visuren.html#q15
http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-CSS21-20030915/visufx.html#overflow
Assignee | ||
Updated•21 years ago
|
Attachment #130776 -
Flags: superreview?(bz-vacation)
Attachment #130776 -
Flags: review?(bz-vacation)
Comment 12•21 years ago
|
||
David, those sections don't seem to clarify the issue from CSS2 much... in
particular, the "users will not have access to clipped content" language remains
in the description of overflow:hidden.
The patch looks technically fine to me at first glance if we do want to allow
keyboard scrolling in overflow:hidden elements.
Assignee | ||
Comment 13•21 years ago
|
||
Oops. That's a mistake.
Assignee | ||
Comment 14•21 years ago
|
||
The change in question is clear in
http://www.w3.org/Style/Group/css2-src/diffs-rec/visufx.html#overflow --
"mechanism" was changed to "user interface".
Comment 15•21 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 130776 [details] [diff] [review]
patch
r+sr=bzbarsky, thoguh NS_STYLE_OVERFLOW_HIDDEN is now somewhat misleadningly
named....
The link you point to is member-only, but I'm assuming that the CSS2.1 spec
will be updated as you say (I'll add it to my list of last-call comments).
Attachment #130776 -
Flags: superreview?(bz-vacation)
Attachment #130776 -
Flags: superreview+
Attachment #130776 -
Flags: review?(bz-vacation)
Attachment #130776 -
Flags: review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 16•21 years ago
|
||
URL should have been
http://www.w3.org/Style/css2-updates/WD-CSS21-20030915-diff/visufx.html#overflow
Assignee | ||
Comment 17•21 years ago
|
||
Checked in, 2003-09-16 15:09 -0700, but leaving open to fix names of constants...
Comment 18•21 years ago
|
||
So now the scrollbar is visible in the testcase - in other words it *is* given a
"User interface". It's just slightly difficult to use because it overrides my
drags after a short while, but to some extent that can be counteracted.
Mighty weird. And definatly NOT how for instance Opera works:
In Opera there is NO visible scrollbar, the content just scrolls on its own.
(attachment 25609 [details])
Comment 19•21 years ago
|
||
I think this has caused a regression in some XUL I was using:
<hbox pack="end" style="overflow: hidden;">
now doesn't align right like it used to.
Comment 20•21 years ago
|
||
Normally there's arbitrary content in the hbox.
Comment 21•21 years ago
|
||
OK, so I need to use -moz-hidden-unscrollable in 1.6a and hidden pre-1.6a?
Will style="overflow: hidden; overflow: -moz-hidden-unscrollable;" work?
Assignee | ||
Comment 22•21 years ago
|
||
Yes, that would work, although really, I'd think in XUL you'd normally want to
just leave 'overflow' at its default, 'visible'.
Re comment 18: It looks like something strange is going on with IFRAMEs. I'll
look into it...
Comment 23•21 years ago
|
||
Unfortunately overflow: visible; has the nasty (for me) effect of making the
overflow visible...
Comment 24•21 years ago
|
||
Oh, and the new property is a bit wordy, how about -moz-crop instead?
Comment 25•21 years ago
|
||
Oh, and does overflow: hidden; make xul's <scrollbox> unnecessary?
Assignee | ||
Comment 26•21 years ago
|
||
comment 18 (regression specific to IFRAMEs) is now bug 220195
Assignee | ||
Comment 27•21 years ago
|
||
Also, the values for the property are all adjectives, not verbs. -moz-cropped
or -moz-clipped might make sense (I prefer the latter), but both those terms
have other meanings in CSS, so I think I'd rather leave it as is.
Assignee | ||
Comment 28•21 years ago
|
||
This also caused "regression" bug 219693, since our percentage height quirks
don't work across scrollframes.
Comment 29•21 years ago
|
||
*** Bug 220607 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 30•21 years ago
|
||
Marking various regression bugs as blocking this bug.
Comment 31•21 years ago
|
||
This might have caused "regression" bug 220718, "mousewheel scrolls innerHTML
when it should not".
Assignee | ||
Updated•21 years ago
|
Comment 32•21 years ago
|
||
this also seems to have caused that a cursor doesn't show up in the input field
here:
http://gemal.dk/test/mozbug.html
in build 20030916-04 it works
in build 20030917-04 it doesn't work
should I open a new bug. Not 100% sure why this bug is still open
Assignee | ||
Updated•21 years ago
|
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 24 years ago → 21 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 33•21 years ago
|
||
This bug is marked FIXED but it isn't ?
The too technical lingo is a bit hard to read too.
Should an element with overflow:hidden be scrollable with keyboard arrows/mouse
or not ?
Meaning: overflow:hidden does nothing more than just remove the scrollbars?
Assignee | ||
Comment 34•20 years ago
|
||
This changes the meaning of the constants for mOverflow (SCROLLBARS_NONE ->
HIDDEN and HIDDEN -> CLIP) in the style struct while leaving them the same for
scrollbar styles. This makes the changes in nsFrameFrame and nsGfxScrollFrame
a little interesting, and I removed the comment in nsGfxScrollFrame that I
think is wrong.
I tested the testcases on this bug, bug 220195, and bug 234851 (all 16
combinations on the dynamic testcase).
Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #155220 -
Flags: superreview?(roc)
Attachment #155220 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Comment on attachment 155220 [details] [diff] [review]
rename constants (checked in 2004-08-09 18:32 -0700)
- // This isn't quite right. The scrollframe will still be scrollable using
keys.
- // This can happen when HTML or BODY has propagated this style to the
viewport.
I think this comment is still correct. Consider
<html>
<body style="overflow:-moz-hidden-unscrollable;">
...
</body>
</html>
We'll have created a scrollframe at the viewport, no scrollbars will be shown,
but you can still scroll using keys (I suspect).
Attachment #155220 -
Flags: superreview?(roc)
Attachment #155220 -
Flags: superreview+
Attachment #155220 -
Flags: review?(roc)
Attachment #155220 -
Flags: review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 36•20 years ago
|
||
OK, I changed it to:
// This isn't quite right (although the value is deprecated and not
// very important). The scrollframe will still be scrollable using
// keys.
Assignee | ||
Updated•20 years ago
|
Attachment #155220 -
Attachment description: rename constants → rename constants (checked in 2004-08-09 18:32 -0700)
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•