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: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 08:15:26 +1200
Message-ID: <11e306600807091315g10f2ae3dx519bc48455d60c23@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Andrew Fedoniouk" <news@terrainformatica.com>
Cc: "David Hyatt" <hyatt@apple.com>, "Ph. Wittenbergh" <jk7r-obt@asahi-net.or.jp>, "W3C Style List" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 7:25 AM, Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
wrote:

> Formally speaking: current specification is buggy by itself so no one can
> prove "correct rendering".
> Definition of z-index and stacking context conflicts with the opacity and
> "draw all children".
>

I don't know where it was written down over the years, but the idea that
we'd resolve the problem by introducing a stacking context is mentioned by
Chris Lilley as early as 2000:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2000Nov/0014.html

It's what we implemented and what Webkit implemented. Hyatt mentions it in
2004:
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/archives/2004_09.html

Information about that behaviour has propagated around the Web, e.g.
http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/everything_you_always_wanted_to_know_about_z-index_but_were_afraid_to_ask.asp

I would be surprised if there aren't Web pages that depend on it.

You need a really strong reason to change this decision now, something more
than just "something else feels more natural to me".

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 20:16:05 GMT

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