- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 22:35:32 +0000 (UTC)
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: whatwg@whatwg.org
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013, L. David Baron wrote: > > A few comments on the 'position: absolute-anchored': > http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/commands.html#css-position-absolute-anchored > > (1) The interaction with CSS transforms is different from the > interaction that 'position: fixed' has. Is that intentional? (Elements > with a CSS transform establish a containing block for position:fixed > elements.) If it is intentional, are implementors really ok with that > (given the desire to be able to do things like animate transforms on > another thread, and interactions with things like z-ordering rules)? The containing block is the ICB. Is that not sufficient to make this work? > (2) I think it's unacceptable to have a computed value that's not > specifiable in CSS; it breaks basic ideas of round-tripping and the CSS > OM. I don't know how you could round-trip this. You have to call the method to make this work. CSSOM should be fine, though, the keyword is readable from there. > (3) Is there a way to get notified when new CSS features are added to > the HTML spec? I only happened to stumble across this one. Done (subscribe to the topic "CSS"). Cheers, -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Thursday, 1 August 2013 22:36:00 UTC