Sorry for not noticing during review -- it looks like our changes go against a CSSWG resolution (which is still pending a spec update), as discussed in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7714#issuecomment-1879319762 We changed here to depend on scroll-container-ness but should instead be depending on the computed `overflow` (even if it doesn't create a scroll container). Or, if you feel strongly about scroll-container-ness, we need to push for a spec change. We should probably backout (or revert the behavior in a followup that preserves some of the worth-keeping things here) -- emilio, would you mind doing that?
Bug 1871412 Comment 7 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
Sorry for not noticing during review -- it looks like our changes go against a [CSSWG resolution](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7714#issuecomment-1248761712) (which is still pending a spec update), as discussed in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7714#issuecomment-1879319762 We changed here to depend on scroll-container-ness but should instead be depending on the computed `overflow` (even if it doesn't create a scroll container). Or, if you feel strongly about scroll-container-ness, we need to push for a spec change. We should probably backout (or revert the behavior in a followup that preserves some of the worth-keeping things here) -- emilio, would you mind doing that?