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.

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 18 April 2013 07:21:21 UTC