- From: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:38:41 +1000
- To: François REMY <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
- CC: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>, www-style@w3.org
François REMY wrote: > > I propose that we also can have a "position-stack" > property with the following values : > > - [initial] "auto" : A new local stacking context is > created as the rules are defined in CSS 2.1/3.0 > (computed to "create-new" if a new stacking context is > needed, to "keep-old" otherwhise). > > - "create-new" : A new local stacking context is created > anytime (top/left/right/bottom of children now refer > to positions relatives to the element, even if these > element is not a float or absolutely positionned > element) > > - "keep-old" : No new stacking context is created even > if the element is absolutely positionned or floated > (top/left/right/bottom of children now refer to > positions relatives to the nearest stacking context). > [..] Francoiss, can you clearly state why there are problems in the current spec for the *block formating context* (with test cases). I can only see issues concerning *overflow*. -- Alan http://css-class.com/ Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power - Abraham Lincoln Save the Internet - http://www.savetheinternet.com/
Received on Wednesday, 20 August 2008 03:39:34 UTC