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

Re: Sticky Positioning

From: Edward O'Connor <eoconnor@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:32:13 -0700
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-id: <m2sjdgmzj6.fsf@eoconnor.apple.com>
Hi Ojan,

You wrote:

> Great use-case. Something long-overdue for CSS to address.

Agreed.

> Some other related use-cases:
>
> 1. positioning an element with respect to another element (e.g. a rich
>    tooltip or formatting bar) without exceeding the bounds of the
>    viewport.

It's not clear to me that this is related to sticky positioning.

> 2. sticking an element to a boundary other than the viewport

This is partly-related, in that I think we want stickiness to happen
per-axis, and for it to happen with regard to the nearest ancestor with
a computed 'overflow' value that isn't 'visible'. Consider a very wide
table with a constrained width and overflow-x: scroll. I might still
want the heading row in its <thead> to stick to the viewport, but I
probably want the column headers to stick to the table.

That said, arbitrarily positioning an element to an arbitrary boundary
doesn't seem to be related to stickiness.

> I think http://www.xanthir.com/blog/b48H0 addresses the same problem
> more generally.

The solution in Tab's blog post solves ALL THE PROBLEMS; it is
essentially a Grand Unified Theory for positioning. Which is
interesting, and definitely worth pursuing. But just because we *could*
describe a positioning value in terms of such a Grand Unified Theory
doesn't mean that we shouldn't make incremental improvements to the
platform now, and add such generalized features later when they're more
baked.


Ted
Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2012 17:32:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:55 GMT