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: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 15:31:18 -0700
Message-ID: <5171C5B6.6030704@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 04/18/2013 12:20 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> 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.

What, so you paint the table cell's background on top of its borders?
I think that's problematic.

~fantasai
Received on Friday, 19 April 2013 22:31:45 UTC

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