Re: Additional value for the visibility property

Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 6:26 AM, Andrew Fedoniouk 
> <news@terrainformatica.com <mailto:news@terrainformatica.com>> wrote:
> 
>     In this case we shall define something like "rendering is undefined"
>     for the case when transparent element has not in-flow children.
> 
> 
> Making rendering "undefined" is unacceptable when there's a perfectly 
> reasonable alternative.
> 
> You can try to write a spec for exactly what Opera does, but you'll find 
> it's significantly more complicated than just creating a stacking 
> context for the element with 'opacity'. Which is why I would argue that 
> Opera's behaviour is actually *not* more natural.
> 

Opera does simple thing for elements with opacity:
It renders only in-flow children on the offscreen buffer (layer).

As I said that requires only "in-flow" to be added to the existing spec.
Nothing else.

About 'naturality'

Imagine that you have container that become gradually visible.
Say in script: ontimer() { cnt.style.opacity += 0.1; }
It is *highly* not desirable (not natural if you wish) when it
suddenly become not a stack context container when counter will hit 1.0.
All absolute positioned children will jump to other places.
I wouldn't treat this as a natural behavior.

Consider floating round problems and you will get all bells and whistles
of the Chaos Theory.

Demand of treating opacity < 1.0 as stack context trigger is
is exactly what "significantly complicates" all things.
Like what is exact precision of opacity < 1.0 comparison that
triggers that stack context role? Any threshold?

-- 
Andrew Fedoniouk.

http://terrainformatica.com