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

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>

Wow - I think my mind just exploded.  Can you (or anyone who understands)
try explaining that again with some slightly more intuitively named
fictitious prop/selectors so I can try wrapping my head around what you are
saying in that last paragraph? or explain the relationship you are
explaining another way that leads to circularity?  It seems like you are
saying that if we had a simple "setting the following properties in a
:stuck rule has no effect..." that is some other way to hit circularity
because of another (new) situation like it?  Is it only in the case where
the properties overlap between two of them or something?  Perhaps I am
being dense, but my mind is spinning.



-- 
Brian Kardell :: @briankardell :: hitchjs.com