The object-* properties affect the "content" of the replaced element, which is analogous to children of the element, so 'overflow' should apply "after" 'object-overflow'.I agree this interaction needs clarification, tho. Trying to cram this behavior into 'overflow' isn't a great idea, imo. The big one is that 'overflow' clips at the padding edge, while replaced contents are clipped at the content edge the other is that, as noted, none of the scrollable values are viable. We can't reuse 'overflow' for this, as it is based on different assumptions that aren't quite compatible with how replaced element contents behave. Currently overflow: clip on a replaced element ignores overflow-clip-margin but now that won't be the what do you think? Any scenario where object-overflow is required in addition to overflow?.The only values supported for replaced elements would be overflow: visible and overflow: clip.Replaced elements would default to overflow: clip (as opposed to overflow: visible) for other elements.If we were to reuse overflow for the desired effect then the result would be : I can see object-overflow being redundant now, it has the same effect as overflow. overflow* properties can then be used to customize the extent of the overflow or to change the reference box used for clipping (since object-overflow defaults to content-box). But object-overflow: visible implies that the content can have an infinite overflow in any direction. So object-overflow: clip (the behaviour today) implies there is no overflow that needs to be clipped by overflow* properties. Object-overflow applies before other overflow properties. But it looks like replaced elements can not have descendants so this point is moot. overflow:clip applies to the element's descendants while object-overflow would be limited to the replaced content so any descendants would not be clipped. The fundamental way I expected these properties to differ is the content that's clipped. Initially, I used the good old float to align the image to the left in the LTR design - and, of course, I used a clearfix.That's a very good catch, thanks for bringing this up. Let’s see a more detailed example to explore how to flip a design from LTR to RTL. However, the CSSWG recommends that the direction should be defined on the html root element to ensure the correct bidirectional layout in the absence of CSS. In addition to setting the dir=rtl attribute on the HTML element, we may also add direction: rtl as a CSS style.element RTL Styling - Basic Example by Ahmad Shadeed ( CodePen. According to the HTML specification:Īuthors are urged to only use this value as a last resort when the direction of the text is truly unknown, and no better server-side heuristic can be applied. It’s worth mentioning that there is a dir="auto" attribute, which switches the direction automatically based on the content parsed. When the dir is changed, the following elements should flip automatically: headings, paragraphs, links, images, and form elements. To switch a document’s language direction, you will need to add the dir attribute to the root element. Luckily, the browser did all of the work for this simple example. Notice for the RTL section, the text reads from right to left, which is the opposite of the LTR text. Below is a basic example to show the difference between an LTR and an RTL layout. If you check the browser of your choice and inspect the browser’s default agent styles for the html element, you will notice that ltr is the default value for the dir (or “direction”) property. The default page direction in CSS is LTR. Arabic (al-Arabiyyah, pronounced /al ʕarabijja/, /ʕarabiː/) is my native language, and I sometimes build websites that need to support both left-to-right (LTR) and right-to-left (RTL) styles. Over 292 million people around the world speak Arabic as their first language. Do you like my content? You can support and buy me a coffee.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |