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

Re: [CSS21] stack level definitions in 9.9.1

From: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:46:41 +1000
Message-ID: <48ABE801.7000406@css-class.com>
To: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
CC: www-style@w3.org

François REMY wrote:
> Hello,
> I see two use-cases for a "position-stack" property.
> One of the two can be work-aroundable but the second one need total 
> change of the structure of the page.
> 
> ================
> 
> UC 1 :
> 
> This property will allow designer to do such type of things :
> 
> <html><body><div>
>    Some content :
>    <div style="inline:block; height: 1.12em; width: 100px; 
> position-stack: create-new;">
>        <img class="top left corner" />
>        <img class="top right corner" />
>        <img class="bottom left corner" />
>        <img class="bottom right corner" />
>    </div>. It worked great !
> </div></body></html>


If you can not do a test case, can you at least show this concept via a 
graphic. I have know idea what you are talking about. It seems like you 
are wanting to create a rounded corner effect with the above markup.



[...]
> UC 2 :
> 
> They're also problems if you have something like :
> <div class="relative" style="z-index: 1">
>    A : I want to be above B
>    <div class="absolute">C : I want to be below D
> </div>
> <div class="relative">
>    B : I want to be below A
>    <div class="absolute" style="z-index: 2">D : I want to be above C
> </div>


This is invalid markup.


> If we can avoid the creation of a new stacking context inside the 
> "relative" elements, the problem would be solvable[...]
> Fremy


I don't see where the problem is that needs to be solved.


-- 
Alan http://css-class.com/

Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's 
character, give him power - Abraham Lincoln

Save the Internet - http://www.savetheinternet.com/
Received on Wednesday, 20 August 2008 09:47:39 GMT

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