On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 7:25 AM, Andrew Fedoniouk <news@terrainformatica.com> wrote: > Formally speaking: current specification is buggy by itself so no one can > prove "correct rendering". > Definition of z-index and stacking context conflicts with the opacity and > "draw all children". > I don't know where it was written down over the years, but the idea that we'd resolve the problem by introducing a stacking context is mentioned by Chris Lilley as early as 2000: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2000Nov/0014.html It's what we implemented and what Webkit implemented. Hyatt mentions it in 2004: http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/archives/2004_09.html Information about that behaviour has propagated around the Web, e.g. http://www.tjkdesign.com/articles/everything_you_always_wanted_to_know_about_z-index_but_were_afraid_to_ask.asp I would be surprised if there aren't Web pages that depend on it. You need a really strong reason to change this decision now, something more than just "something else feels more natural to me". Rob -- "He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah 53:5-6]
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2008 20:16:05 UTC