RE: [css3-backgrounds] Should a non-zero border-radius create a new stacking context ?

That was never the argument. The argument was that if changing z-order was harmful then there should be evidence; given dbaron’s finds we’ll have to leave it at that.

From: rocallahan@gmail.com [mailto:rocallahan@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Robert O'Callahan
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 1:41 PM
To: Sylvain Galineau
Cc: Brad Kemper; www-style@w3.org
Subject: Re: [css3-backgrounds] Should a non-zero border-radius create a new stacking context ?

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 3:58 AM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com<mailto:sylvaing@microsoft.com>> wrote:
It's easy to explain because you're not really explaining anything :) It may be obvious to you what 'not changing z-order' implies for overflow, clipping etc. I'm not sure that's true for everyone.

There is nothing to explain, which is a good thing. Do we need to explain to people that they can ignore, say, 'color' when thinking about z-ordering?
And if opacity is special in this respect - i.e. one can make an obvious case to create a new stacking context for this particular visual effect - then I'm not sure we can use it to argue that it shouldn't happen in other cases. We can just say that it clearly made sense there.

Indeed. I simply deny the argument that that 'opacity' set a precedent of inducing stacking contexts to simplify implementations.

Rob
--
"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." [Acts 17:11]