- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 12:12:03 -0700
- To: "Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu" <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
- CC: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
On 07/09/2012 11:28 AM, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu wrote: > (12/07/10 2:05), Sylvain Galineau wrote: >> >> [Simon Fraser:] >>>> 3. An element with 'inline-block' >>>> >>>> and probably more. Apparently, this needs compatibility research... >>>> >>>> Or is there a good reason why we should start with flex items? >>> >>> I've seen plenty of content with z-index on things that are not >>> positioned, so making changes like this will likely break content. >>> >> +1. Being 'aggressive' here assumes authors understand and use z-index >> properly. Many do not. > > I am just trying to get a reason why we want to start with flex items. > When I list these examples, I am thinking about treating them separately > and only act if we are confident that we won't break things. > > Baseline: Should we do this for flex containers, too? So we can tie z-index to either the display type or the formatting context, and given how it operates in CSS2.1 (triggering off of 'position', which effectively can change the "formatting context" from block flow to abspos), I'd say formatting context would be the most consistent approach. That would mean flex items only. ~fantasai
Received on Monday, 9 July 2012 19:12:37 UTC