It is surprising, but if 'transform' already behaves this way, then it's at least consistent. I haven't myself ever noticed 'transform' affecting descendent positions... On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote: > On Jan 26, 2015, at 12:49 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> > wrote: > > > We need a resolution here sooner rather than later, please. It'd be great > if someone from the IE or Chrome teams could contribute to the discussion... > > A bug related to this issue just cropped up in the wild: > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1125767, > http://jsfiddle.net/lastw/auv3x2y9/. In that bug, a filtered element E > has an abs-pos descendant D for which E is not a containing block ancestor. > In Gecko, D is cropped to E's bounds. In Chrome, D is not filtered. I think > both of those behaviors seem wrong. > > > Sad as it is to diverge from opacity, I slightly prefer this solution: > > > 1) Specify that 'filter' is a containing block for all positioned > descendants (like 'transform' already is). > > I would, however, like to hear from web devs about whether it’s surprising > that applying the ‘filter’ property would suddenly affect the layout of > positioned descendants. > > Simon > >
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2015 04:15:10 UTC