- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 19:05:04 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 07/23/2012 06:52 PM, Simon Fraser wrote: > On Jul 23, 2012, at 5:56 PM, fantasai<fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > >> So I have two questions (non-rhetorical): >> 1. Is it desired / are there use cases for having positioned context >> within a z-positioned element be able to escape the z-positioned >> element's stacking context? > > But then they participate with some other stacking context? What would > the rules be for depth sorting things across different stacking contexts? They (all z-positioned descendants) would participate in the parent stacking context, just like they do when the element only forms a pseudo-stacking context. The difference with a regular element would be that - the element forms a pseudo-stacking context, if it doesn't already - its pseudo-stacking context is given a z-index and participates in its parent context accordingly The difference from a positioned z-index-ed element would be that - the element doesn't form a stacking context, it forms a pseudo-stacking context at the specified level, so z-positioned descendants participate in the parent context Now that I think about it, you might need to specify something special for 'z-index: auto' positioned descendants so they stay with the element rather than layering with the parent's 'z-index: 0' items. Anyway, the first question is, do we even need to consider this. :) ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2012 02:05:35 UTC