- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2012 18:12:09 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 07/02/2012 12:15 PM, Anton Prowse wrote: > 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.) I've written up this issue here: http://wiki.csswg.org/topics/flex-item-painting Feel free to add any relevant details... ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2012 01:12:36 UTC