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.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2012 18:44:17 GMT

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