- From: Simon Fraser via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 01:46:17 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
smfr has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts: == [css-masking] Behavior of `clip` on position:fixed descendants is unspecified == CSS Masking defines the (deprecated) `clip` property here: https://drafts.fxtf.org/css-masking/#clip-property It notes that the property only applies to `position:absolute` elements (UAs also apply it to `position:fixed` so this could use clarification). However, the text does not say that `clip` only applies to containing-block descendants, nor does `clip` create a stacking context. Given that, I'd expect in this example that the `clip` would NOT apply to the fixedpos child: ``` #absolute { position: absolute; background-color: chartreuse; top: 100px; left: 100px; width: 200px; height: 200px; clip: rect(0, 200px, 20px, 0px); } #fixed { position: fixed; top: 50px; left: 50px; background-color: salmon; width: 100px; height: 100px; } <div id="absolute"> <div id="fixed"></div> </div> ``` and yet all UAs agree that it does. This makes it different from the `overflow` property, which only clips containing-block descendants, and different from `clip-path` that triggers a stacking context. As an implementor, I'd prefer that `clip` isn't so special, but at least the spec should describe its implemented behavior. Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8336 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 20 January 2023 01:46:19 UTC