- From: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
- Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 00:35:49 +1000
- To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- CC: www-style@w3.org, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
On 22/04/2011 2:07 PM, Alan Gresley wrote: > It is correct that transforms behave like opacity. I can confirm that > all browsers currently layer a transformed element as if it had > 'position: relative' and 'z-index: 1'. I'm wrong. That is z-index: 0. > This means that these transformed > elements behave as if they have been positioned and have established a > 'new stacking context'. I'm wrong. It's in the current stacking context. A new test. http://css-class.com/test/css/3/transform/transform-z-index.htm I get what you mean in your other email now. A statically positioned transformed element is statically positioned but for any positioned child elements, it is as if it was relatively positioned (creates a new containing block). The only affect of giving a transformed element position: relative is for it's own offset. This also means that transform has a special type of behavior since you can not reset it's position to static and unlike opacity, it changes layers with different z-index. -- Alan Gresley http://css-3d.org/ http://css-class.com/
Received on Friday, 22 April 2011 14:36:18 UTC