W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2014

Re: [CSS2.1] Fixed z-index interop issue

From: Chris Harrelson <chrishtr@google.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 20:48:20 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOMQ+w_J3FxmGbN35hemraGDRgMTpV_ixGHSe4_HUjbxMuaJ-Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Whitworth <gwhit@microsoft.com>
Cc: "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Apologies for not knowing the full background of this decision, but could
someone point me at documentation for why it's bad for position:fixed to be
a stacking context? There are definitely performance & simplicity
advantages to Blink making it so.

(Blink engineer)

On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Greg Whitworth <gwhit@microsoft.com> wrote:

> > I'm pretty sure this is an example of Webkit/Blink incorrectly (but
> intentionally) treating position:fixed as inducing a stacking context. See
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Oct/0000.html and
> related discussions.
> >Rob
> Thanks for the context. Does anyone know if Blink/Webkit has addressed
> their architectural issues so that they no longer need to promote fixed
> elements to a stacking context to get mobile perf (I understand this has
> been a focus at Blink this year)?
> Thanks,
> Greg
Received on Friday, 21 November 2014 23:16:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:45 UTC