- From: James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 10:54:38 -0700
- To: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Message-ID: <CAD73md+Ak1hqpSpkj6WcA8pwcKS+=6ukrcRprn1EER=He08zxA@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net> wrote: > On 01/10/2012 17:57, Sylvain Galineau wrote: > >> From: rocallahan@gmail.com [mailto:rocallahan@gmail.com] On Behalf Of >> Robert O'Callahan >> Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 7:04 PM >> >>> This blog post claims that the WG has resolved to make position:fixed >>> induce a stacking context: >>> >>> http://updates.html5rocks.com/**2012/09/Stacking-Changes-** >>> Coming-to-position-fixed-**elements<http://updates.html5rocks.com/2012/09/Stacking-Changes-Coming-to-position-fixed-elements> >>> Was this decision made at a F2F? I haven't seen anything about it on the >>> list. James Robinson brought this up on the list in May and in that thread >>> it was pointed out that Gecko and Opera are able to accelerate scrolling >>> without this spec change, so we shouldn't need to make it. >>> >> >> Indeed it makes that claim and I asked Tab the same question; he told me >> the WG accepted it though I haven’t yet found the relevant resolution. I do >> not recall this being discussed at the f2f and the minutes do not seem to >> capture it either. Fwiw I do not think we would agree to this without the >> opportunity to assess the compat impact first. >> >> Blog posts should really link to the spec changes they’re talking about. >> > > It hasn't been discussed on the telecons to my knowledge. I had it as a > proposed agenda item for a couple of weeks but there was never time for it, > and then it dropped off the radar. > My understanding is there has been no spec change. An action item of the last discussion was that web compatibility data was needed (for example http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012May/0587.html) which we've been gathering. I plan to present this data soon and propose either an errata to CSS 2.1 E or the positioning spec to make this official. My apologies for the html5rocks article being incorrect here, we had some miscommunication. We'll update that ASAP. - James > Cheers, > Anton Prowse > http://dev.moonhenge.net > >
Received on Monday, 1 October 2012 17:55:05 UTC