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

Re: [css3-regions] regions forming stacking contexts

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:16:07 +1300
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLY9f3yvaGMNGKJ=nr50p31N-wUx_oMc_51zskUL+rM8_Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org Style" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>wrote:

> Different positioning for regions shouldn't be a problem though. The
> initial containing block for named flow is the first region. Not sure it is
> clearly defined now, but it is that way in paged media (first page is the
> ICB) and it better be same in regions. And I don't even want to think of
> abs pos elements in regions not being positioned inside regions (which
> could possibly be considered with this line of thinking).

The initial containing block is the container for the root element. I don't
think we should talk about "the ICB for" content that's not the root

You're quite right that this is not defined now, I'm just asking for it to
be defined. I'm not 100% sure what you just proposed, but it sounds like in
my example you would say that all content flowing into the regions gets R1
as the default containing block for abs-pos elements. That's probably
workable, but it definitely needs to be specced, and it may surprise
authors that abs-pos content flowing into R2 is positioned in R1 even if R2
is also position:relative. Rendering content positioned relative to R1 in
the stacking context for R2 may be interesting.

And as Boris points out, the behavior of absolute positioning with
pagination is highly underspecified already. Regions just make it worse.

"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not
in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us
our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not
sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us." [1 John
Received on Thursday, 2 February 2012 21:16:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:55 UTC