- From: Jacob Floyd <techgurufloyd@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 17:53:26 -0600
- To: www-style@w3.org
Hello! CSS3 is a great improvement from 2.1. I am excited, in particular, for the selectors, pseudo-elements, as well as the generated content module. Move-to will be very useful in laying out a page, but to use it the CSS author must be sure that the element (s)he wishes to move is before where he wants to put it, which causes a dependency on structural mark-up. As far as I can see (and after a quick search through the mailing list archive) there are no methods for simply changing which block should be used as the containing block. CSS2.1 says (http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#containing-block-details) "If the element has 'position: absolute', the containing block is established by the nearest ancestor with a 'position' of 'absolute', 'relative' or 'fixed'..." I believe allowing an author to set an 'absolute-containing-block' or something similar would be extremely beneficial. What this does for the author: Allows absolute positioning based on a different element (say the direct parent, useful in cases such as CSS based menus as well as general layout.) What this means to user-agents: User-agents, would not "move" the element, as in 'move-to' but would base the position of the current element, and all of that elements descendants on the element defined in 'absolute-containing-block'. I'm not sure if there are any other reprecussions, for the user-agent, but I believe this would allow the user-agent to progressively show the document as it loads it, because absolutely positioned objects don't cause re-flow, they are just put on top. To make sure that the user-agent doesn't place the absolutely-positioned element under the absolute-containing-block I think the z-index, when none is defined, should default to the absolute-containing-block's z-index +1 or something similar. If this has already been suggested, great! Please point me to where I can read the discussion, as I did not see anything quite like it in the archives. Otherwise, I hope to see this incorporated (if it, or something similar) isn't already in either the positioning module, or the advanced layout module, As I think it would fit in either module, but fit better in positioning. Thanks! Jacob
Received on Wednesday, 21 September 2005 00:36:39 UTC