- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 09:34:24 -0800
- To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>, Nicholas Cameron <ncameron@mozilla.com>
On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: > 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. Unless I'm misunderstanding, the spec is describing Mozilla's current behavior. This is illustrated by the first example in <https://hacks.mozilla.org/2010/08/mozelement/> (the one with white text on an orange background), and a few others in that page. > 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. Yeah, I think that requiring stacking contexts is fairly reasonable these days. There are tons of ways to cause that. I'll make the change later today. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 3 February 2014 17:35:11 UTC