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

Re: [css3-regions] regions forming stacking contexts

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 23:07:25 +1300
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLa7bvHSmadn09szQN5=WhfDrkUsc6BubBw2R-FOFAnE0Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 7:56 PM, Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>wrote:

> I tend to agree that the current wording doesn't make it much more clear
> or intuitive. Perhaps just removing the note would be fine, we already say
> (normatively) that region has its own stacking context...
>

While we're here, can we address the question of what happens when an
element with its own stacking context splits across regions with their own
stacking contexts? At least one of those stacking contexts has to lose its
stacking-context-ness and be possibly interleaved in z-order with other
content.

The problem is particularly acute for CSS properties like 'opacity' (and
'filter') that induce stacking contexts, where the current rendering
semantics depend strongly on the element *not* being interleaved in z-order
with other content.

I brought this up earlier but apparently it didn't get addressed. I think
it's quite fundamental.

Rob
-- 
"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
1:8-10]
Received on Friday, 6 January 2012 10:07:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:48 GMT