[whatwg] comments on 'position: absolute-anchored'

[Ian Hickson]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2013, L. David Baron wrote:
>
> A few comments on the 'position: absolute-anchored':
> http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/commands.html#css-position-absolute-anchored
> 
> (1) The interaction with CSS transforms is different from the 
> interaction that 'position: fixed' has.  Is that intentional? (Elements 
> with a CSS transform establish a containing block for position:fixed 
> elements.)  If it is intentional, are implementors really ok with that 
> (given the desire to be able to do things like animate transforms on 
> another thread, and interactions with things like z-ordering rules)?

The containing block is the ICB. Is that not sufficient to make this work?


> (2) I think it's unacceptable to have a computed value that's not 
> specifiable in CSS; it breaks basic ideas of round-tripping and the CSS 
> OM.

I don't know how you could round-trip this. You have to call the method to 
make this work.

CSSOM should be fine, though, the keyword is readable from there.


> (3) Is there a way to get notified when new CSS features are added to 
> the HTML spec?  I only happened to stumble across this one.

Done (subscribe to the topic "CSS").

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