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

[CSS21] Issue 60 (stack level) - comments on Editor's Draft

From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 09:51:48 +0200
Message-ID: <4CC29414.4010509@moonhenge.net>
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Hi Bert,

Thanks for choosing to adopt the edits that I petitioned for!  I'm very 
happy with the wording in the Editor's Draft, with just a couple of 
small remaining issues.

Firstly, in the definition of the 'auto' value of 'z-index' in 9.9.1:

   # auto
   #   The stack level of the generated box in the current stacking
   #   context is '0'. [...]

s/'0'/0/
since 0 is being used here not as the value of a CSS property but simply 
as an integer.  (See [1])

Secondly, I very much hope that you will reinstate the phrase 
"non-positioned" in painting layer 4 and also in the subsequent 
paragraph, as argued for in [2].  With the ED wording it is ambiguous 
whether a relatively-positioned float lies on painting layer 4 or on 
layers 2/6/7, and whether positioned floats/inline blocks/inline tables/ 
with integer z-index form stacking contexts or pseudo–stacking contexts.

Note that the phrase "non-positioned" was introduced for painting layer 
4 in the 23 April 2009 CR as the resolution to Issue 60a[3], and it's 
not clear why it has now been removed from the ED.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Jul/0162.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Jul/0077.html
[3] http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css2.1#issue-60a

Cheers,
Anton Prowse
http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Saturday, 23 October 2010 07:52:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:33 GMT