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

Re: [css4-images] element() behavior

From: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 11:40:04 -0700
Cc: robert@ocallahan.org, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <5E5E58E7-9CE1-456A-8856-2DBB7A5203D5@me.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
On Aug 2, 2012, at 10:00 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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

What does this mean? Does it mean that an element becomes
like a stacking context when some element() is referencing it?

That kind of "action at a distance" is gross, and I would object to it.

Simon
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2012 18:40:32 GMT

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