W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2011

Re: Transforms and z-index (Was: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2011-04-20)

From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 17:32:06 +0200
Message-ID: <4DB19F76.40101@moonhenge.net>
To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
CC: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, Philippe Wittenbergh <ph.wittenbergh@l-c-n.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
On 22/04/2011 16:51, Simon Fraser wrote:
> On Apr 22, 2011, at 3:01 am, Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:
>
>>
>> On Apr 22, 2011, at 2:16 PM, Simon Fraser wrote:
>>
>>> I think you misunderstand. Those still work. I'm saying that 'left' and 'top'
>>> don't apply to a statically positioned, transformed element.
>>
>> er.. yeah, reading failure on my part. Sorry about that.
>>
>> But it still feels weird that an AP child/descendant of a statically positioned transformed  element uses the transformed element as its containing block.
>
> But think about the alternative; the left/top offset for the positioned descendent would cross a transform boundary (which might be a rotation), which becomes nonsensical.

But is that not also true if the positioned descendant is positioned 
outside of the containing block (the "positioning rectangle") formed by 
statically positioned transformed element, achieved through the use of 
negative left/right, negative top/bottom, overly large 
left/right/top/bottom or any combination of those?

Cheers,
Anton Prowse
http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Friday, 22 April 2011 15:32:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:39 GMT