- From: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
- Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 12:42:52 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: robert@ocallahan.org, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
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 UTC