- From: Morten Stenshorne <mstensho@opera.com>
- Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 10:16:59 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
"Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> writes: > Back in Flexbox's LC, we had an LC issue from Morten > <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-flexbox/issues-lc-2012#issue-5> about > flex items painting atomically (that is, establishing pseudo-stacking > contexts). > > There was definitely a preference that they be atomic, but we couldn't > find a strong enough reason to make them inconsistent with table > cells, which paint non-atomically like blocks. > > We're wondering if we could just change table cells (and thus flex > items and grid items) to paint atomically, though. > > As far as we can tell, the only way this behavior would be noticeable > is a float from outside the table cell overlaps the table cell (via > negative margins), which currently makes the float paint *above* the > table cell's background, but *below* the table cell's contents. This > change would make it either paint above or below the entire table > cell, depending on their relative tree positions. This situation > seems like it would be rather uncommon, and more atomicity in painting > is pretty much always a good idea for implementations and easier for > authors to understand. > > So the key question is, is this change web-compatible, and do we want > to make it? If it sufficiently web-compatible, I would welcome such a change. Actually, if we decide to make any changes in this area, I think I'd like to go even further, and say that a "pseudo-stacking context" should be established every time a new block formatting context is established; i.e. make it apply to table-captions and non-visible overflow containers in addition to the box types you list (table cells and flex and grid items). More consistent that way. -- ---- Morten Stenshorne, developer, Opera Software ASA ---- ---- Office: +47 23692400 ------ Mobile: +47 93440112 ---- ------------------ http://www.opera.com/ -----------------
Received on Tuesday, 2 April 2013 08:17:33 UTC