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

Re: Additional value for the visibility property

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 23:08:28 +1200
Message-ID: <11e306600807090408y2bc8397bweae4baf37749e423@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com>
Cc: "Ph. Wittenbergh" <jk7r-obt@asahi-net.or.jp>, "W3C Style List" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
wrote:

> That is what I would like to clarify - how exactly it should be rendered.
>

I think it's clear that according to the spec it should be rendered the way
Gecko and Webkit render it.

If you're suggesting that the spec should be changed --- this has been
specified and interoperably implemented in Gecko and Webkit for years, so I
think you'd need a pretty strong argument. Personally it feels unnatural to
me to render an element and its descendants as a single composition group
but carve out an exception for descendants that happen to be out-of-flow.
(Although I'm not actually sure what you're proposing, since there might be
descendants which are out-of-flow but still have the element as their
containing block ancestor.)

Also note that if the author really wants an out-of-flow element to be
composited seperately they can usually move it in the document outside of
the container with 'opacity' and give it its own 'opacity' to achieve that.

Rob
-- 
"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah
53:5-6]
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2008 11:09:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:10 GMT