W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2010

Re: [CSS21] stack level definitions in 9.9.1

From: Justin Poirier <poirier.justin@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 22 May 2010 22:18:01 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTim9Bc3zkWTr90RyyEhPQ8MTyignWKuk_kPtWE3r@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
>
>  *** Your proposal regarding auto and '0' is not included here. I found it
>> confusing as it could be read as conflicting with the description of layer 8
>> in Appendix E which does make a difference between auto/0 positioned
>> descendants.
>>
>
> Indeed, there /is/ a difference.  But that difference is not related to
> stack levels and painting layers, and hence there is no conflict.  (All
> such elements all lie on the same painting layer [#6 in the list] of
> whatever transpires to be their closest ancestor stacking context.)  The
> difference is in how the closest ancestor stacking context is determined.
>
Sylvain, to complement what Anton is saying by rephrasing it: the difference
between auto and 0 descendants that you note in layer 8 of E regards how
they paint (or don't paint) THEIR descendants, and not which comes first
between the two in the current stacking context (ie. stack level).

Justin Poirier
Classroom306.com
Received on Sunday, 23 May 2010 02:18:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:27 GMT