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

Re: Has it been resolved to make position:fixed induce a stacking context?

From: James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 10:54:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD73md+Ak1hqpSpkj6WcA8pwcKS+=6ukrcRprn1EER=He08zxA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net> wrote:

> On 01/10/2012 17:57, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
>> From: rocallahan@gmail.com [mailto:rocallahan@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
>> Robert O'Callahan
>> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 7:04 PM
>>> This blog post claims that the WG has resolved to make position:fixed
>>> induce a stacking context:
>>> http://updates.html5rocks.com/**2012/09/Stacking-Changes-**
>>> Coming-to-position-fixed-**elements<http://updates.html5rocks.com/2012/09/Stacking-Changes-Coming-to-position-fixed-elements>
>>> Was this decision made at a F2F? I haven't seen anything about it on the
>>> list. James Robinson brought this up on the list in May and in that thread
>>> it was pointed out that Gecko and Opera are able to accelerate scrolling
>>> without this spec change, so we shouldn't need to make it.
>> Indeed it makes that claim and I asked Tab the same question; he told me
>> the WG accepted it though I haven’t yet found the relevant resolution. I do
>> not recall this being discussed at the f2f and the minutes do not seem to
>> capture it either. Fwiw I do not think we would agree to this without the
>> opportunity to assess the compat impact first.
>> Blog posts should really link to the spec changes they’re talking about.
> It hasn't been discussed on the telecons to my knowledge. I had it as a
> proposed agenda item for a couple of weeks but there was never time for it,
> and then it dropped off the radar.

My understanding is there has been no spec change.  An action item of the
last discussion was that web compatibility data was needed (for example
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012May/0587.html) which
we've been gathering.  I plan to present this data soon and propose either
an errata to CSS 2.1 E or the positioning spec to make this official.

My apologies for the html5rocks article being incorrect here, we had some
miscommunication.  We'll update that ASAP.

- James

> Cheers,
> Anton Prowse
> http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Monday, 1 October 2012 17:55:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 February 2015 12:35:16 UTC