- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 18:27:01 -0700
- 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