On 04/17/2013 11:28 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Sat, Apr 6, 2013 at 11:16 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: >> Combining these two makes me think that, in turn, if cells are to be >> pseudo-stacking contexts, then either: >> (a) the backgrounds of all of the table parts except for the table >> (i.e., column groups, columns, row groups, rows, and cells) >> should be part of background layer in the pseudo-stacking >> context established by the cell, or >> (b) none of the backgrounds (not even the cell's) should be part of >> the pseudo-stacking context established by the cell. > > fantasai and I are fine with option (b). It's kinda crazy, but tables > are kinda crazy anyway, and we agree that it's the least crazy of the > options, especially from an author's perspective. Followup question, assuming we're going with (b): If a table cell is promoted to an *actual* stacking context (by e.g. setting "opacity: 0.9" on it), *then* the cell's background would be part of the cell's stacking context, right? Thanks, ~DanielReceived on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 23:35:25 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:28 UTC