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

Re: [css3-flexbox] Paint flex items atomically?

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 18:12:09 -0700
Message-ID: <4FFB8169.70302@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 07/02/2012 12:15 PM, Anton Prowse wrote:
> On 28/06/2012 11:00, Morten Stenshorne wrote:
>> Should flex items be treated as if they sort of establish a new stacking
>> context (except for descendants that are positioned or create true
>> stacking contexts on their own)? I'm talking about what
>> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/zindex.html has to say about inline-block,
>> inline-table and floats.
>
> It's certainly a reasonable question to think about. I think I probably prefer them not to, in order to make overflow more
> accessible; but I could easily live with them doing so, too. My guess is that implementers will prefer them to do so, since in
> a multiline flexbox perhaps you wouldn't be able to paint the inline content inside each item (which might overflow
> vertically) in the first line until you'd already figured out and painted the backgrounds of the items in the second line,
> etc. This situation already occurs in normal block/inline layout, of course, but I sense that that flex items will be given
> fixed heights more often than normal blocks.
>
> (Don't forget that any element can be turned into one which creates a pseudo-stacking context by giving it
> position:relative;z-index:auto.)

I've written up this issue here:
   http://wiki.csswg.org/topics/flex-item-painting

Feel free to add any relevant details...

~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2012 01:12:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:56 GMT