W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > April 2012

[whatwg] Fullscreen changes to support <dialog>

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 17:39:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCs2JjBnONmxB96nMtJxKgbg5qKDbPFSWsWTFUTX3SYRQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert at ocallahan.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
>> ?This layer consists of a stack of elements, which each CSS viewport
>> ?maintains. These stacks are initially empty. When the layer is painted,
>> ?the elements in the stack are rendered in the order that they were added
>> ?to the stack, with the most recently added being rendered closest to the
>> ?user. The 'z-index' property is ignored for this stacking layer.
> Is each element in this stack treated as having its own stacking context? I
> assume so, but you'd better say so.

Yes, definitely.

> - Define a new pseudo-element ::backdrop which applies to any element in
>> ?such a stack; it addresses a box that exactly covers the viewport
>> ?immediately below the element in the stack, in the same stacking layer,
>> ?whose only applicable properties are the 'background' properties.
>> ?(Alternatively, make it a generic box with properties initially set to
>> ?have position:fixed and positioned to exactly cover the viewport, but
>> ?I don't see much point in letting people fiddle with this box's
>> ?positioning, display type, etc.)
> It's probably more work to make all non-background properties inapplicable
> than it would be to simply treat it like ::before/::after generated content.

Strongly agreed.  For one, it's annoying to restrict things.  For two,
it's badly-defined what "background" properties are - it's possible
for properties that aren't prefixed with "background-" to affect
backgrounds (for example, image-resolution).  For three, this assumes
that we have thought of all possible things that can be applied by
non-background properties, including properties not yet dreamed up,
and decided that they're all useless.

Unless there's a good reason to restrict something, keep it unrestricted.

Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2012 17:39:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:59:41 UTC