Re: [css3-selectors]: Proposal: :in-view() selector for better visibility control

How could it be infinite loop?
Elements would just disappear at the moment they will fit in to viewport.
I have another question:
May we say that element with visibility:hidden actually IS inside viewport?
It have size, so…
And what about display:none? Such elements don't have size, but I think
they have a position…



*Anton Nemtsev*
Frontend Developer
+38 050 277 38 82 <+380502773882>
anton.nemtsev@vaimo.com
[image: Vaimo Logo] <http://www.vaimo.com/> *Vaimo*
Zhylianska str. 31
Kiev, Ukraine
+38 044 364 19 66 <+380443641966> | www.vaimo.com

*We are hiring* - Help us grow!
vaimo.com/careers <http://www.vaimo.com/careers/>

*Follow us:* [image: Vaimo Facebook]
<http://www.facebook.com/VaimoGlobal> [image:
Vaimo Twitter] <https://twitter.com/vaimoglobal> [image: Vaimo LinkedIn]
<http://www.linkedin.com/company/2510355>

On 30 November 2016 at 21:42, Oriol _ <oriol-bugzilla@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I think this could produce infinite loops:
>
>
> ```css
>
> :in-view(all) {
>
>   display: none;
>
> }
>
> ```
>
> - Oriol
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Hi folks!
>
> It would be perfect if we get the next pseudo class: :in-view() with a
> different parameters
> :in-view(all) - selected node is 100% visible in viewport
> :in-view(partial) - selected node is partially visible in viewport
> :in-view(none) - selected node is outside of viewport
>
> And inverted logic using :not()
> :not(:in-view(all)) - synonym of :in-view(none)
> :not(:in-view(partial)) - selected node is partially INvisible in viewport
> :not(:in-view(none)) - synonym of :in-view(all)
>
> Real cases are the next.
> If I have some absolutely positioned popup blocks inside of relative
> positioned ones, sometimes it fall out from viewport due relative block
> position I would like to return that block into a viewport again. Now I
> have to use JS.
>
> Other one is sticky behavior. I can hide something or change the position
> just using :in-view(partial) selector. I don't need position: sticky
> anymore :)
>
> So, what do you think about it?
>
> --
> s0rr0w
>