W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2008

Re: [cssom-view] Why is body's offsetParent null ?

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:21:38 +0200
To: "Daniel Glazman" <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.t919ucwy64w2qv@annevk-t60.oslo.opera.com>

On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 13:07:32 +0200, Daniel Glazman  
<daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
>> Following that (special casing position:relative on the HTML body  
>> element) would break finding the position of an element within the  
>> page, as I explained here:
>>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008Apr/0366.html
>>  And as that's what these attributes are used for primarily I don't  
>> think that's a better solution.
> Why am I under the impression there is no common ground that can easily
> emerge from existing browsers' common practice and that the choice made
> in this spec are more in favor of Opera against other implementations...

I don't know. It's true that the specification originates from Opera, but  
we changed Opera's behavior pretty drastically from where it was to where  
it is now to more closely align with other browsers.

It's just in the case of the HTML body element having position set to  
relative we have not and the specification currently reflects that. I've  
explained why I think that's a better choice. Given that settting  
position:relative on the HTML body element is not common practice I don't  
think this is much of an issue either way although special casing it would  
make things more complicated as far as I can tell.

> If I'm right - and I hope I am not - moving that to Last Call then
> raises the risk these implementors will object strongly.

If they do not agree that this is better than we'll have to figure out  
something that works better for them, indeed.

> I'm not sure at this time the comments from Mike Wilson and Garrett
> Smith are entirely addressed. They are raising extremely consistent
> issues and I don't see consensus emerge.

Correct, there seems to be disagreement over the above.

> I also think Robert
> O'Callahan's comment does make a lot of sense,

What do you mean here? I think I have addressed all of Robert's comments  
so far to his satisfaction.

> and I'm not sure any
> more offset* properties don't have to be killed to let emerge something
> that will be interoperable w/o breaking existing common practice.

I'm having trouble following the double negative. Could you explain what  
you mean?

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2008 11:21:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:36 UTC