Bug 1989292 Comment 3 Edit History

Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.

Yeah - this ticket is backwards for us.
We _always_ use the scrollable containing block for all anchor resolution and overflow evaluation.
As in comment 0, we should do it only for `position-area`.

The difference is demonstrated in the attached test case.
There are two anchors: `--top` and `--bottom`. The former is visible without scrolling, the latter is not.
The purple positioned element, which uses `position-area`, uses the scrollable containing block, so it is able to anchor to the `--bottom` anchor without overflow.
On the other hand the violet positioned element, which uses `anchor()` functions, uses the local containing block, and the attempt to anchor to the `--bottom` anchor results in an overflow. So it triggers the use of `position-try-fallbacks`, anchoring to the `--top` anchor instead.

A similar effect should apply to `position-visibility: no-overflow`.
Yeah - we have a backwards problem.
We _always_ use the scrollable containing block for all anchor resolution and overflow evaluation.
As in comment 0, we should do it only for `position-area`.

The difference is demonstrated in the attached test case.
There are two anchors: `--top` and `--bottom`. The former is visible without scrolling, the latter is not.
The purple positioned element, which uses `position-area`, uses the scrollable containing block, so it is able to anchor to the `--bottom` anchor without overflow.
On the other hand the violet positioned element, which uses `anchor()` functions, uses the local containing block, and the attempt to anchor to the `--bottom` anchor results in an overflow. So it triggers the use of `position-try-fallbacks`, anchoring to the `--top` anchor instead.

A similar effect should apply to `position-visibility: no-overflow`.
Yeah - we have a backwards problem.
We _always_ use the scrollable containing block for all anchor resolution and overflow evaluation.
As in comment 0, we should do it only for `position-area`.

The difference is demonstrated in the attached test case.
There are two anchors: `--top` and `--bottom`. The former is visible without scrolling, the latter is not.
The purple positioned element, which uses `position-area`, uses the scrollable containing block, so it is able to anchor to the `--bottom` anchor without overflow.
On the other hand, the violet positioned element, which uses `anchor()` functions, uses the local containing block, and attempting to anchor to the `--bottom` anchor results in an overflow. So it triggers the use of `position-try-fallbacks`, anchoring to the `--top` anchor instead.

A similar effect should apply to `position-visibility: no-overflow`.

Back to Bug 1989292 Comment 3