- From: Nikos Andronikos via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 00:01:20 +0000
- To: public-svg-issues@w3.org
> This is an example (linked from https://philipwalton.com/articles/what-no-one-told-you-about-z-index/ ) where changing opacity for one item (an item without any children elements / not a group) changes stacking order: That's not true, the example does use groups. The opacity is changed on the div element, which is a grouping element. The z-index is applied to the object within the group. The example is contrived to make a point. It's useful for explaining the finer points of stacking contexts, but It's not a good way to structure a document. But having thought about the structure of this document. I do have an idea of how we might be able to reduce any possible confusion - though it sacrifices flexibility. There are legitimate reasons to want to change the opacity of a group, and change the position in the z axis of one element in the group - the group might be used to apply a common transformation perhaps (note transform doesn't create a stacking context in SVG). But in this case, you just can't do it all with one group and that's not going to change. A group can only represent the set of objects that are transformed, or the set of objects that are adjacent in the z axis. This leads me to how we can reduce confusion. This may be achieved by forcing the group to only represent the set of objects that are adjacent in the z-axis. We can define SVG to make the parent object of any element that has a z-index other than 'auto' form a stacking context. This would mean that the use of z-index inside a group can only be used to control the stacking order within that group. It's restrictive, but mostly consistent with how groups should be used. This might be a terrible idea (it's pretty late here), or we may not want to be that restrictive. But I'll reopen this for comment. -- GitHub Notification of comment by nikosandronikos Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/svgwg/issues/264#issuecomment-247193381 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 15 September 2016 00:01:26 UTC