- From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 17:32:06 +0200
- To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
- CC: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, Philippe Wittenbergh <ph.wittenbergh@l-c-n.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
On 22/04/2011 16:51, Simon Fraser wrote: > On Apr 22, 2011, at 3:01 am, Philippe Wittenbergh wrote: > >> >> On Apr 22, 2011, at 2:16 PM, Simon Fraser wrote: >> >>> I think you misunderstand. Those still work. I'm saying that 'left' and 'top' >>> don't apply to a statically positioned, transformed element. >> >> er.. yeah, reading failure on my part. Sorry about that. >> >> But it still feels weird that an AP child/descendant of a statically positioned transformed element uses the transformed element as its containing block. > > But think about the alternative; the left/top offset for the positioned descendent would cross a transform boundary (which might be a rotation), which becomes nonsensical. But is that not also true if the positioned descendant is positioned outside of the containing block (the "positioning rectangle") formed by statically positioned transformed element, achieved through the use of negative left/right, negative top/bottom, overly large left/right/top/bottom or any combination of those? Cheers, Anton Prowse http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Friday, 22 April 2011 15:32:34 UTC