Re: [css3-flexbox] Paint flex items atomically?

On 28/06/2012 11:00, Morten Stenshorne wrote:
> Should flex items be treated as if they sort of establish a new stacking
> context (except for descendants that are positioned or create true
> stacking contexts on their own)? I'm talking about what
> http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/zindex.html has to say about inline-block,
> inline-table and floats.

It's certainly a reasonable question to think about.  I think I probably 
prefer them not to, in order to make overflow more accessible; but I 
could easily live with them doing so, too.  My guess is that 
implementers will prefer them to do so, since in a multiline flexbox 
perhaps you wouldn't be able to paint the inline content inside each 
item (which might overflow vertically) in the first line until you'd 
already figured out and painted the backgrounds of the items in the 
second line, etc.  This situation already occurs in normal block/inline 
layout, of course, but I sense that that flex items will be given fixed 
heights more often than normal blocks.

(Don't forget that any element can be turned into one which creates a 
pseudo-stacking context by giving it position:relative;z-index:auto.)

Cheers,
Anton Prowse
http://dev.moonhenge.net

Received on Monday, 2 July 2012 19:15:55 UTC