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

Re: The :min-width/:max-width pseudo-classes

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 10:30:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCLJ1+v69hG0EVO2GZse4284WyANVHyegC-BtP695bhRA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: Fran├žois REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> On 3/22/13 1:25 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> No, the problem is that a layout manager needs to be invoked at all to
>> resolve selectors.  If an internal API wants up-to-date styles but
>> doesn't actually care about layout, right now it can do that by just
>> resolving all the selectors and running the cascade.  With the
>> introduction of viewport-element-relative pseudoclasses, it needs to
>> resolve layout, at least partially.
>
> So I actually have a question.
>
> What determines whether something is a "viewport"?  I seem to have missed
> that somewhere in here.
>
> In the <iframe> case it's simple: it's the (immutable!) namespace+localName
> of the element.  But in the case we're talking about?

It would be a property that switches it into "viewport mode", where
its intrinsic size is no longer dependent on its children.  (No cyclic
dependencies, because the viewport-element-relative pseudos can't
apply to the subject of the selector.)

~TJ
Received on Friday, 22 March 2013 17:31:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:07 GMT