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

RE: [css3-backgrounds] Should a non-zero border-radius create a new stacking context ?

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 20:57:35 +0000
To: "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>
CC: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E2A501774@TK5EX14MBXC111.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
I disagree that this adds complexity for authors; we can't argue that creating a stacking context for overflow != visible would have simplified things *and* that doing so in some cases makes them unacceptably harder. Especially when existing, heavily-used properties already do this.



If the side effects of creating a new stacking context is so likely to break pages then opacity and transforms are equally problematic for authors. If so I'd like to see evidence that working around this is a common issue for authors; I'm not claiming such evidence does not exist btw. Pointers definitely welcome.



In the absence of said evidence, a cogent argument as to why taking this kind of risk is acceptable in some cases but not others - opacity is very heavily used, at least as much as border-radius if not more so - would be most helpful.



________________________________
From: rocallahan@gmail.com [rocallahan@gmail.com] on behalf of Robert O'Callahan [robert@ocallahan.org]
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 12:00 AM
To: Sylvain Galineau
Cc: Brad Kemper; www-style@w3.org
Subject: Re: [css3-backgrounds] Should a non-zero border-radius create a new stacking context ?

On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com<mailto:sylvaing@microsoft.com>> wrote:
The argument is *not* that it should be done because it was done for opacity < 1 or transform != none. The argument is that the extra complexity is very likely unnecessary in practice because if such scenarios were common then opacity < 1 would break a lot of pages and/or require workarounds.

Even if the scenarios aren't common, making them behave unexpectedly still has the downside of adding complexity for authors.

  The penalty is not high. But it's real and I don't like making things harder than they need to be simply because 'that's the way it is'. Especially when several implementors agree that non-visible overflow is more complex than it needs to be.

Sure, but you're proposing adding more complexity on top of that, from an author's point of view.

Rob
--
"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." [Acts 17:11]
Received on Monday, 22 November 2010 20:58:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:34 GMT