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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:01 GMT