- From: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2012 12:15:36 +0200
- To: www-style@w3.org
On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 10:56:40 +0200, Aryeh Gregor <ayg@aryeh.name> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 2:11 AM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> > wrote: >> The spec says "The object acts as a containing block for fixed >> positioned >> descendants." It also needs to say that the object is a containing >> block for >> abs-pos descendants too. > > I see > > """ > Any value other than ‘none’ for the transform results in the creation > of both a stacking context and a containing block. The object acts as > though position: relative has been specified, but also acts as a > containing block for fixed positioned descendants. > """ > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-3d-transforms/ > > This seems pretty clear to me. Were you reading an outdated draft? > As is generally the case at the W3C, we don't mark them clearly > enough, so people sometimes get confused. That ED is dated 28 January 2012, whereas http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-transforms/ is dated 27 July 2012. The latter says "In the HTML namespace, any value other than ‘none’ for the transform results in the creation of both a stacking context and a containing block. The object acts as a containing block for fixed positioned descendants." and "Any value other than ‘none’ for the transform results in the creation of both a stacking context and a containing block. The object acts as a containing block for fixed positioned descendants." which is less clear (though "acts as though position: relative" was misleading too, and should not be reinstated). Seems to me that it would be better to explicitly say how http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#containing-block-details is modified. A containing block is a rectangle, not a box or element or whatever the term "the object" is supposed to refer to. -- Øyvind Stenhaug Core Norway, Opera Software ASA
Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2012 10:16:09 UTC