W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2009

Re: Stacking order question

From: Ben Cotterell <ben.cotterell@antplc.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:35:21 +0100
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0dbeef4286e7e4c19996c8b7ce759f8ddd4213be@localhost>
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 02:56:11PM +0100, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> Ben Cotterell wrote:
> 
> > See Appendix E: All non-positioned floating descendants, in tree
> > order. For each one of these, treat the element as if it created a
> > new stacking context, but any descendants which actually create a new
> >  stacking context should be considered part of the parent stacking
> > context, not this new one.
> 
> This appears to have been clarified since the last public draft.

Not just clarified, changed. It now says positioned descendents are part
of the parent stacking context. Previously they only were if they had
z-index of not auto.

> In
> particular, the current wg-internal draft says here:
> 
>    All non-positioned floating descendants, in tree order. For each
>    one of these, treat the element as if it created a new stacking
>    context, but any positioned descendants and descendants which
>    actually create a new stacking context should be considered part
>    of the parent stacking context, not this new one.
> 
> Note also that section 9.5 has similar verbiage:
> 
>    The contents of floats are stacked as if floats generated new stacking
>    contexts, except that any positioned elements and elements that
>    actually create new stacking contexts take part in the float's parent
>    stacking context.

Yes, it used to say:

   The contents of floats are stacked as if floats generated new
   stacking contexts, except that any elements that actually create new
   stacking contexts take part in the float's parent's stacking context.
   A float can overlap other boxes in the normal flow

> This last is true in both the public draft and in the wg-internal draft,
> so the only change here was to bring Appendix E into agreement with
> section 9.5.
> 
> -Boris

Anyway, thanks very much for your input. We'll go with the latest public
draft and I should stop working from my slightly out-of-date pdf.

-- 
Ben Cotterell
ANT Software Limited
Received on Thursday, 16 July 2009 14:33:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:19 GMT