- From: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 00:12:18 +0000
- To: Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com>, Chris Jones <cjon@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
- CC: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
± From: Vincent Hardy [mailto:vhardy@adobe.com] ± Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 10:38 AM ± ± >> Alternatively, a single-document implementation of regions should ± >>return the hit-tested element at the given coordinates. ± ± Yes, I agree and I think we should mention this in the spec. I added an ± issue for it: ± ± https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15679 Thanks. I would like to take an action to propose API for regions spec, before F2F. ± I am not sure about external flows: since we agreed to remove them from ± the spec. for now, I think we should not talk about elementFromPoint in ± that context. We have removed the special iframe behavior from the spec, with action on me to propose a different way to achieve the same result: http://wiki.csswg.org/spec/css3-regions#issue-19special-behavior-of-iframe-flow. Apparently my action is overdue, I'll fix that. Regardless of particular way to put external flow into regions, regions spec is otherwise agnostic to source of content, so it should be in scope of the spec to acknowledge that if/where it matters. Especially since we have an implementation for external flow. Alex
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 00:13:06 UTC