W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > April 2012

[whatwg] Fullscreen changes to support <dialog>

From: Sean Hogan <shogun70@westnet.com.au>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 13:51:52 +1000
Message-ID: <4F7D16D8.1080506@westnet.com.au>
On 5/04/12 3:31 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 1:05 AM, Anne van Kesteren<annevk at opera.com>  wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Apr 2012 01:14:43 +0200, Ian Hickson<ian at hixie.ch>  wrote:
>>> If this works, then I'll use this for<dialog>.
>> How does this work for nested browsing contexts? Currently using<iframe
>> allowfullscreen>  (not in HTML yet) you can fullscreen elements embedded via
>> an<iframe>. Would we then have to push the<iframe>  element on the stack
>> and make its height and width cover the viewport, and then push the element
>> in question inside the<iframe>  on the stack, or do we want to deal with
>> this in another way?
> The thinking so far is that we don't do anything special for dialogs.
> They don't escape their<iframe>, and the<iframe>  doesn't have any
> special response to a dialog spawning within it, unlike for
> fullscreen.
>
>
>> Which pseudo-classes are we keeping? :fullscreen still seems useful,
>> :fullscreen-ancestor probably not. What are the new default styles going to
>> be?
> In the www-style thread I gave a proposal for the new styling. I'll
> reproduce it here:
>
> :fullscreen {
>   position: fixed;
>   top: 0; left: 0; right: 0; bottom: 0;
> }
>
> :fullscreen::backdrop {
>   position: fixed;
>   top: 0; left: 0; right: 0; bottom: 0;
>   background: black;
> }
>
> dialog[modal] {
>   position: center;
> }
>
> dialog[modal]::backdrop {
>   position: fixed;
>   top: 0; left: 0; right: 0; bottom: 0;
> }

So the ::backdrop could be styled to not cover the whole page?
Could it default to a "top" layer, but optionally be given a z-index?

Sean
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2012 20:51:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:48:07 GMT