- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 11:43:29 -0700
- 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 UTC