[whatwg] Fullscreen changes to support <dialog>
Tab Atkins Jr.
jackalmage at gmail.com
Tue Apr 3 17:39:54 PDT 2012
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 5:29 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert at ocallahan.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
>> This layer consists of a stack of elements, which each CSS viewport
>> maintains. These stacks are initially empty. When the layer is painted,
>> the elements in the stack are rendered in the order that they were added
>> to the stack, with the most recently added being rendered closest to the
>> user. The 'z-index' property is ignored for this stacking layer.
> Is each element in this stack treated as having its own stacking context? I
> assume so, but you'd better say so.
> - Define a new pseudo-element ::backdrop which applies to any element in
>> such a stack; it addresses a box that exactly covers the viewport
>> immediately below the element in the stack, in the same stacking layer,
>> whose only applicable properties are the 'background' properties.
>> (Alternatively, make it a generic box with properties initially set to
>> have position:fixed and positioned to exactly cover the viewport, but
>> I don't see much point in letting people fiddle with this box's
>> positioning, display type, etc.)
> It's probably more work to make all non-background properties inapplicable
> than it would be to simply treat it like ::before/::after generated content.
Strongly agreed. For one, it's annoying to restrict things. For two,
it's badly-defined what "background" properties are - it's possible
for properties that aren't prefixed with "background-" to affect
backgrounds (for example, image-resolution). For three, this assumes
that we have thought of all possible things that can be applied by
non-background properties, including properties not yet dreamed up,
and decided that they're all useless.
Unless there's a good reason to restrict something, keep it unrestricted.
More information about the whatwg