- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 15:05:15 -0700
- To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@nokia.com>
- CC: ext Anne van Kesteren <annevk@annevk.nl>, Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>, Peter Linss <peter.linss@hp.com>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 06/21/2012 04:18 AM, Arthur Barstow wrote: > On 6/21/12 5:16 AM, ext Anne van Kesteren wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:48 PM, fantasai >> <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: >>> You could just work in the explanation I sent in >>> http://www.w3.org/mid/4FC64100.3060800@inkedblade.net >> Added a note. >> >> The reason this is not very elaborated is that this really belongs in >> a CSS specification that defines the layout box model and painting >> order etc. in detail. As part of that you would have the top layer >> concept and ways to hook into it via pseudo-elements, such as >> ::backdrop. And some non-normative description around it to aid people >> new to the material. >> >> Having this in Fullscreen is just patching holes in the CSS 2.1 >> specification, which is not a great way to do things. > > Daniel, Fantasai - please confirm whether or not Anne's latest changes ([1],[2]) address the "#2 issue" ([3]) that is blocking > FPWD: > > <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/fullscreen/raw-file/tip/Overview.html#::backdrop-pseudo-element> # ... for an element in the top layer's stack. E.g. for the element that # is displayed fullscreen as described by this specification. This second part is a fragment, not a sentence, so I'd suggest rewording, maybe like this | ... for an element in the top layer's stack (such as a fullscreen element). But otherwise it seems fine to me. ~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2012 22:05:53 UTC