[Bug 17782] New: Painting order in Appendix E fails for tables whose captions have negative stack level

https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17782

           Summary: Painting order in Appendix E fails for tables whose
                    captions have negative stack level
           Product: CSS
           Version: unspecified
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: CSS Level 2
        AssignedTo: bert@w3.org
        ReportedBy: antonsforums@yahoo.co.uk
         QAContact: public-css-bugzilla@w3.org


Reported by Anton Prowse

9.3.1 (The 'position' property) says, in the definition of the 'relative'
value:

  # [...] The effect of 'position:relative' on table-row-group,
  # table-header-group, table-footer-group, table-row, table-column-group,
  # table-column, table-cell, and table-caption elements is undefined.

Still, whilst the relpos offsetting effect on table captions has inconsistent
support across the major UAs, the effect of inducing a stacking context has
good interoperable support.

By using negative margins and/or relpos offsetting on the caption, we can force
it to overlap the table box.  We observe that a caption with negative stack
level is painted below the table box despite being a child element of the table
element to which the table box is associated, in line with expected behaviour
for stacking contexts.

This means that Step 2 in the painting order specified in Appendix E is
incorrect for table elements that themselves establish a stacking context,
since it handles the painting of the table box prior to painting the caption
box with negative stack level in Step 3.

The painting of the table box needs to be postponed until after Step 3.

Conversation begins:
Bug report:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012May/0498.html (second half)

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Saturday, 14 July 2012 21:47:04 UTC