W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2012

Re: [css4-images] element() behavior

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 09:01:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGN7qDAuHYhaiOxNR7LWu-0fBprvTU27EW9yujQTkuMUDe_yDg@mail.gmail.com>
To: robert@ocallahan.org
Cc: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 2:42 AM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote:
>
>> However, I wonder if this doesn't conflict with our earlier decision that
>> when you render the element(), it's as if you're starting painting from the
>> root, but only painting the target element and its descendants. Things like
>> filters etc. will create stacking context. So if the element() target has
>> an ancestor with a filter, we paint its positioned descendants in their
>> normal painting order (affected by the fact that the filter creates
>> stacking context), but we don't actually apply the effect of the filter.
>>
>
> Good point.
>
> What we actually do in Gecko is treat the element target as a stacking
> context when rendering its contents for element().


aha, so it's more like my suggestion:

 *Maybe you could say that element() can only reference elements that
establish a context or elements that don't contain another context.*


Since you're establishing a new context, could we make so it would be OK
for your ancestor to have a "display:none"?
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2012 16:01:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:58 GMT