Re: [css3-selectors]: Proposal: :in-view() selector for better visibility control

Nope, it doesn't.

:in-view(all) means that element was visible, was 100% fit in viewport, but
has taken away from it. So, selector doesn't find it anymore.

I think browser should skip all hidden elements because it has no
width/height



On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 9:42 PM, Oriol _ <oriol-bugzilla@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I think this could produce infinite loops:
>
>
> ```css
>
> :in-view(all) {
>
>   display: none;
>
> }
>
> ```
>
> - Oriol
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Hi folks!
>
> It would be perfect if we get the next pseudo class: :in-view() with a
> different parameters
> :in-view(all) - selected node is 100% visible in viewport
> :in-view(partial) - selected node is partially visible in viewport
> :in-view(none) - selected node is outside of viewport
>
> And inverted logic using :not()
> :not(:in-view(all)) - synonym of :in-view(none)
> :not(:in-view(partial)) - selected node is partially INvisible in viewport
> :not(:in-view(none)) - synonym of :in-view(all)
>
> Real cases are the next.
> If I have some absolutely positioned popup blocks inside of relative
> positioned ones, sometimes it fall out from viewport due relative block
> position I would like to return that block into a viewport again. Now I
> have to use JS.
>
> Other one is sticky behavior. I can hide something or change the position
> just using :in-view(partial) selector. I don't need position: sticky
> anymore :)
>
> So, what do you think about it?
>
> --
> s0rr0w
>



-- 
s0rr0w