[whatwg] Fullscreen changes to support <dialog>

Ian Hickson ian at hixie.ch
Tue Apr 3 18:58:18 PDT 2012

On Wed, 4 Apr 2012, Robert O'Callahan 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.

Right, each one would be its own atomic stacking context much like a 
'position:absolute' box normally is today. I agree this should be explicit 
in the Fullscreen spec.

> > - 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.

Either is fine by me.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

More information about the whatwg mailing list