[Bug 22772] Ability to position an element relative to and overlapping a non-sibling and non-ancestor element (see comment 15)


Jim Michaels <jmichae3@yahoo.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
          Component|Positioned Layout           |CSSOM
           Assignee|dave.null@w3.org            |simonp@opera.com

--- Comment #18 from Jim Michaels <jmichae3@yahoo.com> ---
that's the css part. kind of.
I never knew element() existed. all I knew of were calc() attr() and toggle().
the px values still need to be accessible always for use with css attr() and in
js. I was thinking of something more like a js dot notation to access things so
the context of the element() didn't get lost. that's what makes the js and java
and c++(?) dot notation so useful. it *keeps context info*. without that, doign
such complicated stuff is kinda hokey/hairbrained to read and to write/code.
but wasn't . already in use by css for something else? as an engineer, I would
like to see something like 
left:element(#i3).calc(attr(left) + 5em);
that would be most intuitive to me. and also as a js programmer. (those
functions are looking awful good right now...) I am liking what I see so far. I
think you have something there!

I can't think of any other uses for such dot notation at this time. but I
wouldn't be surprised if there were a lot more where addressability and context
is concerned.

ahh yes, classes. hmm. I hope someone has a workaround for this. or maybe
dot-notation can still be used - I hope, parser tweaking. I still think dot
notation could lead to some interesting things now that there's a context of a
specific element() or collection of elements(). you could say things like "I
want this group of elements to have their width attribute set to 50%-20px. all
without having to use JS. but I still want to be able to do this with JS also,
which means having some sort of ability to read pixel positions of elements and
element sizes at all times. this way, web apps still have their functionality.  

maybe I should split this into 2 different bug reports? one for css and leave
this one for js?

I put the the example on jsfiddle here: http://jsfiddle.net/jmichae3/3FcNS/14/
for folks to tinker with.

the jsfiddle versioning is automatic and is on the end of the URL as an integer
version number. that way, the original doesn't get lost in the shuffle (and
yes, you can go back to an older version). so if you think you have an answer,
you can simply post the url here.

I will say that the table doesn't act anything like I want it to with
image+surrounding text in ff.

I am putting this up on jsfiddle so folks can tinker with it and test and post
changes and results.

the 2 images should be right on top of each other with left corners touching if
it were to work the way I wanted it.

it doesn't do that now.

jsfiddle also seems to be an online HTML5+CSS+JS viewer+editor. that's why I am
using it.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the QA Contact for the bug.

Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2013 09:06:19 UTC