On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On Tue Dec 10 2013 at 5:33:25 PM, Charles Walton < >> charleswalton@google.com> wrote: >> >>> If criteria 2 + 3 (the scroll-related ones) are removed, I don't see a >>> big benefit in expanding the syntax beyond the current "none | strict" >>> values. Being said, I'm not sure I fully understand the impact of those new >>> generated content properties. >>> >> >> The point of the expanded syntax I proposed is precisely to allow the >> scroll-related ones to still be available, if you need them. >> >> >>> Also, are there any problems with SVG-esque stuff, like imported clip >>> paths? Say "#shape" was defined within a "contain: strict" element - could >>> it be referenced outside that element? >>> >> >> That is a good question. Probably no, I would think. Levi, Ojan, >> thoughts? >> > > Very late to this. It's not clear to me what should happen here. My > intuition is that we'd want to disallow this. The things contain:strict is > trying to achieve are style recalculation and layout isolation. So, in this > case, laying out the contents of the contain:strict element would require > first laying out the #shape element. It could be made to work, but I'm not > sure we'd want to. > It would be some amount of work to make clip-path: url(#shape) work when #shape is in a contain:strict element. However, it would also be some amount of work to make sure that clip-path: url(#shape) does NOT work when #shape's nearest contain:strict ancestor is not the nearest contain:strict ancestor of the styled element (which I assume is what you'd really want). I'm not sure the former is much more work than the latter. 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 Thursday, 13 February 2014 01:45:05 UTC