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

Re: [css-backgrounds] Painting area and 'background-attachment: local'

From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 18:56:32 +0100
Message-ID: <51C1F0D0.80003@exyr.org>
To: www-style@w3.org
CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Le 19/06/2013 11:22, Simon Sapin a écrit :
> Le 19/06/2013 11:17, Simon Sapin a écrit :
>>>       1. Both the positioning and painting area are based on the scrolled
>>> content. (The difference between padding-box and border-box includes any
>>> non-overlay scrollbars in addition to borders.)
>> This is the part I find more important. In particular, the portion of
>> the image that is clipped by 'background-clip: content-box' compared to
>> 'padding-box' can scroll out of view
>>
>> As an example, these two document should behave roughly the same when
>> scrolling:
>>
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2013Jun/att-0075/background-attachment-local-painting-area-test.html
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2013Jun/att-0075/background-attachment-local-painting-area-ref.html
>
> Here is the behavior that the first document should *not* have:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2013Jun/att-0076/painting-area-notref.html

Blink and WebKit have the behavior I want (-ref.html), Perso and Trident 
the one I don’t. (-notref.html)

I’m in the middle of writing the Gecko implementation, and will match 
Blink/WebKit.

-- 
Simon Sapin
Received on Wednesday, 19 June 2013 17:56:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:12 UTC