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

Re: [CSS21] stack level definitions in 9.9.1

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:19:39 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0808191019k600e50feke13e6e136a1bc0c3@mail.gmail.com>
To: "François REMY" <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "Anton Prowse" <prowse@moonhenge.net>, www-style@w3.org
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 12:07 PM, François REMY
<fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>wrote:

>
> I propose that we also can have a "position-stack"
> property with the following values :
>
>   - [initial] "auto" : A new local stacking context is
>   created as the rules are defined in CSS 2.1/3.0
>   (computed to "create-new" if a new stacking context is
>   needed, to "keep-old" otherwhise).
>
>   - "create-new" : A new local stacking context is created
>   anytime (top/left/right/bottom of children now refer
>   to positions relatives to the element, even if these
>   element is not a float or absolutely positionned
>   element)
>
>   - "keep-old" : No new stacking context is created even
>   if the element is absolutely positionned or floated
>   (top/left/right/bottom of children now refer to
>   positions relatives to the nearest stacking context).


I am *very* much behind this.  Throwing position:relative on something that
is actually a position:static just to achieve a stacking context is a hack,
and I've had to rework parts of a design before due to stacking contexts
being implicitly created where they were not wanted.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 19 August 2008 17:20:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:11 GMT