- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 14:31:20 -0800
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:28 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > https://drafts.csswg.org/css-will-change/#valdef-will-change-custom-ident > says: > > If any non-initial value of a property would cause the element to > generate a containing block for fixed-position elements, > specifying that property in will-change must cause the element to > generate a containing block for fixed-position elements. > > I think this should instead say: > > If any non-initial value of a property would cause the element to > generate a containing block for fixed-position elements, > specifying that property in will-change must cause the element to > generate a containing block for fixed-position _and > absolute-position_ elements. > > I don't think we need special will-change handling for the > properties that establish a containing block for absolute-position > but not fixed-position elements (i.e., the position property), but > the properties that establish a containing block for > fixed-positioned elements *also* do so for absolutely-positioned > elements. And it would be bizarre (and defeat the point of the > special will-change handling) to establish only half of the > containing-block nature and not all of it. > > (Also see > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-fx/2015OctDec/0035.html > about making this clearer in css-transforms and css-filters.) > > > While here, it's probably also worth using "absolutely positioned" > and "fixed positioned" as > https://drafts.csswg.org/css-containment/#containment-paint does, > rather than "fixed-position" and "absolute-position". Fixed. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 4 December 2015 22:32:09 UTC