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 11:43:29 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDB0HTd4gq6ZgbC0xBncDsTHQBknZj2vOsSvOp2EYXyMxw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
Cc: robert@ocallahan.org, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote:
> On Aug 2, 2012, at 10:00 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.

I would also object to it, don't worry.  ^_^  No, I was just asking if
we should only allow stacking contexts (and things that provide paint
sources) to be the target of element().  Other elements would just
produce invalid images.

Received on Thursday, 2 August 2012 18:44:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 February 2015 12:35:14 UTC