- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 01:58:18 +0000 (UTC)
On Wed, 4 Apr 2012, Robert O'Callahan 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. Right, each one would be its own atomic stacking context much like a 'position:absolute' box normally is today. I agree this should be explicit in the Fullscreen spec. > > - 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. Either is fine by me. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2012 18:58:18 UTC