- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 15:38:51 -0800
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert at ocallahan.org> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage at gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> I think we should go the route that the <dialog> element did in Ted's >> change proposal and have a pseudo-element that gets created when an >> element is fullscreened. ?Simple and easy, and trivial for the author >> to manipulate to get most effects they could want. > > Interesting. I did not know about that. > > That proposal requires layout engine changes --- specially, at least one new > rule for CSS stacking contexts in the infamous "appendix E". Also, it > doesn't address situations where an ancestor of the <dialog> or fullscreen > element has 'opacity', 'transform', 'filter', 'mask' or 'clip-path' (and > maybe other things I've forgotten). Hm, why would it require stacking-level changes? One obvious way to get it to act "correctly" is to make it wrap around the element, like the old ::outside pseudo-element proposal. Then it's trivial. > I think we should probably define a unified mechanism that can be used for > the fullscreen element and the <dialog> element and anything else like it we > need. And figure out what happens if you make part of a page fullscreen and > that uses <dialog>. Or if you have nested <dialog>s mixed with fullscreen... > Hmm. Yes, we should give some thought to how these combine. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 14 November 2011 15:38:51 UTC