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 12:42:52 -0700
Cc: robert@ocallahan.org, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <19F795FA-56E8-4AD8-8BA4-BB3B4F94A865@me.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>

On Aug 2, 2012, at 11:43 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

We know that authors don't understand stacking contexts, so that seems
like it would be a source of author confusion.

It might be simpler to just say that element() doesn't render things outside
of the stacking context of the element() target.

Simon
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2012 19:43:20 GMT

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