[whatwg] comments on 'position: absolute-anchored'
ian at hixie.ch
Thu Aug 1 15:35:32 PDT 2013
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013, L. David Baron wrote:
> A few comments on the '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
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").
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg