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

Re: [css4-images] element() behavior

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 10:00:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBw2vuq6c3W0dt2iDT-V_wK6zaC_Ahpy57nKqZsWVgg3A@mail.gmail.com>
To: robert@ocallahan.org
Cc: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@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().

Ah, that's an important detail.  In discussion with James Robinson, we
were wondering about the element being forced into a stacking context.

We were also wondering if we should take this farther, and actually
require the element to be a stacking context in reality, as it might
let us reuse existing rendering more often.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2012 17:01:11 GMT

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