W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2013

Re: :stuck psuedo class WAS: specifying position:sticky

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 18:27:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDDjbtB6-7if-C40ySw2n4xVFmTLgpJJt+Nv1dkVkcLjg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org>
Cc: Corey Ford <cford@mozilla.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote:
> This may be too early, but I think we should add a pseudo-class for
> position:sticky's that are stuck to an edge. This lets you easily style the
> stuck element (e.g. with a box-shadow).

Immediately bringing up the obvious question of what ":stuck {
position: static; }" does.

I think we can't avoid this problem forever, and that the right
solution is to define a set of "selector-affecting properties" and
"property-affected selectors", and say that you can't set any of the
former in a style rule whose selector contains one of the latter.

(That is, you can't *just* say "you can't set position inside a :stuck
rule", because as soon as another property/selector (foo-prop and
:foo), you can just set 'foo-prop' inside of :stuck and then set
'position' inside of :foo and run into circularity again.  You have to
treat the whole set of properties as infectious to the whole set of
selectors.)

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 28 August 2013 01:27:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:33 UTC