- From: mattwoodrow via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2025 02:01:49 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> Yeah, inherited isn't really the right word (although we do use it in our compositor code, when indicating that one compositor layer should take its `backface-visibility` from the transform + `backface-visibility` combination of its parent layer, because it's a layer for something within the space where an ancestor `backface-visibility` applies). What I really mean is "not in a separate plane for purposes of `backface-visibility`". Ok, makes sense! > > I'm mentioning it because I think in the discussion starting at [#918 (comment)](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/918#issuecomment-1696711327) we hadn't listed forming a new 3D rendering context as one of the things that pops something out of the plane to which `backspace-visibility` applies (whereas we did mention having a 3D transform). I don't think it should, because the root of a 3D rendering context flattens to 2D space and then it's just normal content within the scope of the outer plane/stacking context. The decisions about whether content should form a new plane only makes sense (I think) within the scope of a single 3D rendering context. -- GitHub Notification of comment by mattwoodrow Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/918#issuecomment-2626136612 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 31 January 2025 02:01:50 UTC