- From: Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:10:47 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
- CC: Morten Stenshorne <mstensho@opera.com>
On 3/28/13 3:52 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: >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? > >~TJ and fantasai > <note>I wish we defined pseudo-stacking contexts. As far as I can tell the connection between the term and the treatment of inline-block, inline-table and floats in Appendix E is this mailing list. (Come to think of it, I'm not even 100% sure this is the full/correct definition). Appendix E seems the ideal spot (CSS2.1 errata?)Š</note>
Received on Thursday, 28 March 2013 23:11:21 UTC