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

Re: [css3-flexbox] Painting order

From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 13:37:30 +0200
Message-ID: <500942FA.5000109@moonhenge.net>
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
CC: Morten Stenshorne <mstensho@opera.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
On 20/07/2012 13:31, Anton Prowse wrote:
> On 20/07/2012 13:22, Morten Stenshorne wrote:
>> Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net> writes:

>>> Of course, if the abspos child had integer z-index, it would
>>> participate in a different stacking context,
>> No, it wouldn't. It would establish a new one on its own, but still
>> participate in the stacking context established by the root element /
>> viewport.
> This is true in your example, but I was specifically considering an
> example (the "former case") in which the flex container established a
> stacking context (eg through the use of position:relative;z-index:5).

My mistake; the "different stacking context" that I was referring to was 
intended to mean the one established by the root element or whatever, as 
opposed to the pseudo stacking context established by item1 in which the 
abspos participates when it has auto z-index.  (I hadn't yet introduced 
my "former case" example at that point.)

Anton Prowse
Received on Friday, 20 July 2012 11:38:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:01 UTC