- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:06:26 -0600
- To: Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com>
- Cc: benjo316@gmail.com, "www-style@w3.org List" <www-style@w3.org>, David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Andrew Fedoniouk
<news@terrainformatica.com> wrote:
> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> This makes complete sense. Elements later in the document order are
>> later in the paint order as well.
>
> Try this:
>
> <html>
> <head>
> <style>
> .layer div { width:100px; height:100px; }
> .layer div.principal { margin:-10px 0; width:110px; }
> .layer div:hover { background:gold !important; }
> </style> </head>
> <body>
>
> <div class="layer">
> <div class="static" style="background:red">Red</div>
> <div class="principal" style="opacity:0.5; background:blue">Blue</div>
> <div class="static" style="background:green">Green</div>
> </div>
> <hr/>
> <div class="layer">
> <div class="static" style="background:red">Red</div>
> <div class="principal" style="background:blue">Blue</div>
> <div class="static" style="background:green">Green</div>
> </div>
>
> </body>
> </html>
>
> Which rendering on these two div.layer's is more intuitive?
Personally? The second.
But as you said before, people can disagree about what's the most intuitive.
My point is that the 'normal' rendering (document order maps to paint
order) isn't *un*intuitive, it provides an effect that can't be easily
replicated in any other way, and the alternatives *can* be easily
replicated through other methods.
`TJ
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 21:07:02 UTC