W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2012

Re: [css3-transforms] Missing text about transforms inducing an abs-pos containing block

From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:24:27 +0200
Message-ID: <5024B72B.50601@moonhenge.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
CC: Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name>, Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
On 08/08/2012 12:51, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com> wrote:
>> Seems to me that it would be better to explicitly say how
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#containing-block-details is
>> modified. A containing block is a rectangle, not a box or element or
>> whatever the term "the object" is supposed to refer to.
>
> This is annoying, because CSS 2.1 is frozen and provides no hooks for
> us.

Yes, the section on containing blocks is hard to work with in that regard.

> I don't suppose there's a CSS 3 spec where we could update the
> definition of containing blocks so that it explicitly allows other
> specs to modify the definition?

Not one that's likely to be mature enough when you need it, no, 
unfortunately.  CSS3-box will contain an improved containing block 
treatment.

> The way we're doing things now is
> more or less like COMEFROM, where different CSS specs are expected to
> arbitrarily modify others with no clear interfaces, so that
> interactions are completely undefined if two different specs happen to
> modify the same behavior independently.  (By contrast, stacking
> context creation is explicitly extensible, for instance.)

Agreed.  Painting layer insertion suffers from the same problem.  I've 
pondered the idea of having a Module Interactions draft which keeps a 
track of all this, and gets updated frequently.

> But I guess that's a bigger issue.  To fix this specific case, I filed
> a bug, with proposed resolution:
>
> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18500

The proposal therein seems reasonable, although personally I had to 
parse the "is treated the same as" bit a couple of times to understand 
the meaning that you intend.

Cheers,
Anton Prowse
http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Friday, 10 August 2012 07:24:58 GMT

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