W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2013

Re: [CSS21] table cells establishing pseudo-stacking contexts (was Re: [CSSWG] Minutes Telecon 2013-04-05)

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 00:20:30 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAT+Nmh2hSn5cONQ+EYaUB5jt=gXX8TyLUaSCd-5UQe+w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com> wrote:
> On 04/17/2013 11:28 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 11:16 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
>>> Combining these two makes me think that, in turn, if cells are to be
>>> pseudo-stacking contexts, then either:
>>>  (a) the backgrounds of all of the table parts except for the table
>>>      (i.e., column groups, columns, row groups, rows, and cells)
>>>      should be part of background layer in the pseudo-stacking
>>>      context established by the cell, or
>>>  (b) none of the backgrounds (not even the cell's) should be part of
>>>      the pseudo-stacking context established by the cell.
>> fantasai and I are fine with option (b).  It's kinda crazy, but tables
>> are kinda crazy anyway, and we agree that it's the least crazy of the
>> options, especially from an author's perspective.
> Followup question, assuming we're going with (b):
> If a table cell is promoted to an *actual* stacking context (by e.g.
> setting "opacity: 0.9" on it), *then* the cell's background would be
> part of the cell's stacking context, right?

Maybe?  It looks like that's what Chrome does.  However, borders still
belong to the table itself if they're collapsed.

Received on Thursday, 18 April 2013 07:21:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:10 UTC