- From: Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 12:39:51 +0100
- To: "Elliott Sprehn" <esprehn@gmail.com>, "Rik Cabanier" <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Cc: "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>, "Philip Rogers" <pdr@chromium.org>
On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 03:54:19 +0100, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Was having a 'blend-' prefix ever discussed (as in: blend-isolation)? I couldn't find any mentions of it when searching through the w3 mailinglists. Would 'blend-isolation' be an acceptable new name? -- Erik Dahlstrom, Web Technology Developer, Opera Software Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
Received on Thursday, 4 December 2014 11:40:48 UTC