http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-images/#element-notation > The function represents an image with its intrinsic size equal to the decorated > bounding box of the referenced element > Giving element() an intrinsic size is actually super bad. It creates almost arbitrarily bad circular layout dependencies; e.g. any <li> element's size can now depend on the size of any other element in the document! Detecting and fixing the circularity isn't easy either, because you can combine this with existing dependencies to create cycles in all kinds of ways. Since this is mostly useless anyway, I propose specifying that element()s have no intrinsic dimensions at all. Regarding issue #9, I think the best solution is to amend the condition "an element that is rendered and is not a descendant of a replaced element" to also require that the element have a stacking context. We could specify that directly, but it might be simpler for authors to just require it have non-auto z-index and non-static position. Rob -- Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o Whhei csha iids teoa stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d 'mYaonu,r "sGients uapr,e tfaokreg iyvoeunr, 'm aotr atnod sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t" uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n? gBoutt uIp waanndt wyeonut thoo mken.o w
Received on Sunday, 2 February 2014 22:06:33 UTC