Re: [compositing] isolation property should be renamed

On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com> wrote:

> If all the isolation property does is create a stacking context [1][2]
> then it seems like it should be called stacking-context: true to reveal
> it's purpose,
>

Its purpose is not to create stacking context. It's designed to limit the
backdrop for its children with blending.
The fact that the spec says to do this using a stacking context, is for
implementors; not authors.

As Erik Dahlström noted, this property also applies to SVG which has no
stacking contexts. [1]


> otherwise we're just going to have blog posts about the "secret css hacks"
> to create stacking contexts using isolation: isolate as stacking contexts
> have all kinds of other side effects.
>

How would this be different from "will-change: transform;"?
That creates a stacking context with the same side effects.


> The property also does not seem to be specific to blending, and the
> isolation naming is confusing given that there's talk of layout/style
> isolation, bidi isolation, and now blend isolation.
>

It's meant to be used with blending and filters but as with many other
properties, it has side effects.

The next level of the spec will also reintroduce support for non-isolated
blending. Since this is expensive, authors will be able to opt into this
with this same property. Non-isolated blending will not introduce a
stacking context.

I agree that the name is somewhat confusing. We (= mailing list + css
group) went over different options a couple of years ago and this was the
one that we eventually settled on.

1:
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/blink-dev/WoLwgoPB-GE/LITzZ2ifVVsJ