-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 672
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[css-transforms-2] transform-style: preserve-3d should only have effects on transformable elements #6430
Comments
And based on code inspection, this appears to match what Gecko does. (I'd like to change Chrome to do the same, because then I won't have to worry about how to fix some assertion failures.) |
chromium-wpt-export-bot
pushed a commit
to web-platform-tests/wpt
that referenced
this issue
Jul 8, 2021
Make transform-style: preserve-3d still be a no-op on non-replaced inline elements rather than making it force a stacking context and a containing block. This matches Gecko's behavior, and I think the intent of the spec change that this is implementing. The proposal to change the spec to match is in w3c/csswg-drafts#6430 . This change also means we can avoid worrying about fixing the DCHECK() failures triggered by having an additional way of making non-replaced inlines be a containing block for fixed-positioned elements. Fixed: 1226287 Change-Id: Ifeb472de072355001d71f37f3e6bf7c71d085154
chromium-wpt-export-bot
pushed a commit
to web-platform-tests/wpt
that referenced
this issue
Jul 8, 2021
Make transform-style: preserve-3d still be a no-op on non-replaced inline elements rather than making it force a stacking context and a containing block. This matches Gecko's behavior, and I think the intent of the spec change that this is implementing. The proposal to change the spec to match is in w3c/csswg-drafts#6430 . This change also means we can avoid worrying about fixing the DCHECK() failures triggered by having an additional way of making non-replaced inlines be a containing block for fixed-positioned elements. Fixed: 1226287 Change-Id: Ifeb472de072355001d71f37f3e6bf7c71d085154 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3011457 Reviewed-by: Stefan Zager <szager@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: David Baron <dbaron@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#899617}
chromium-wpt-export-bot
pushed a commit
to web-platform-tests/wpt
that referenced
this issue
Jul 8, 2021
Make transform-style: preserve-3d still be a no-op on non-replaced inline elements rather than making it force a stacking context and a containing block. This matches Gecko's behavior, and I think the intent of the spec change that this is implementing. The proposal to change the spec to match is in w3c/csswg-drafts#6430 . This change also means we can avoid worrying about fixing the DCHECK() failures triggered by having an additional way of making non-replaced inlines be a containing block for fixed-positioned elements. Fixed: 1226287 Change-Id: Ifeb472de072355001d71f37f3e6bf7c71d085154 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3011457 Reviewed-by: Stefan Zager <szager@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: David Baron <dbaron@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#899617}
pull bot
pushed a commit
to Yannic/chromium
that referenced
this issue
Jul 9, 2021
Make transform-style: preserve-3d still be a no-op on non-replaced inline elements rather than making it force a stacking context and a containing block. This matches Gecko's behavior, and I think the intent of the spec change that this is implementing. The proposal to change the spec to match is in w3c/csswg-drafts#6430 . This change also means we can avoid worrying about fixing the DCHECK() failures triggered by having an additional way of making non-replaced inlines be a containing block for fixed-positioned elements. Fixed: 1226287 Change-Id: Ifeb472de072355001d71f37f3e6bf7c71d085154 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3011457 Reviewed-by: Stefan Zager <szager@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: David Baron <dbaron@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#899617}
moz-v2v-gh
pushed a commit
to mozilla/gecko-dev
that referenced
this issue
Jul 18, 2021
…l be no-op on inlines., a=testonly Automatic update from web-platform-tests [TransformInterop] Make preserve-3d still be no-op on inlines. Make transform-style: preserve-3d still be a no-op on non-replaced inline elements rather than making it force a stacking context and a containing block. This matches Gecko's behavior, and I think the intent of the spec change that this is implementing. The proposal to change the spec to match is in w3c/csswg-drafts#6430 . This change also means we can avoid worrying about fixing the DCHECK() failures triggered by having an additional way of making non-replaced inlines be a containing block for fixed-positioned elements. Fixed: 1226287 Change-Id: Ifeb472de072355001d71f37f3e6bf7c71d085154 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3011457 Reviewed-by: Stefan Zager <szager@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: David Baron <dbaron@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#899617} -- wpt-commits: 3373bcff73e290f95342a9b71c5a967bf47da582 wpt-pr: 29605
moz-v2v-gh
pushed a commit
to mozilla/gecko-dev
that referenced
this issue
Jul 20, 2021
…l be no-op on inlines., a=testonly Automatic update from web-platform-tests [TransformInterop] Make preserve-3d still be no-op on inlines. Make transform-style: preserve-3d still be a no-op on non-replaced inline elements rather than making it force a stacking context and a containing block. This matches Gecko's behavior, and I think the intent of the spec change that this is implementing. The proposal to change the spec to match is in w3c/csswg-drafts#6430 . This change also means we can avoid worrying about fixing the DCHECK() failures triggered by having an additional way of making non-replaced inlines be a containing block for fixed-positioned elements. Fixed: 1226287 Change-Id: Ifeb472de072355001d71f37f3e6bf7c71d085154 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3011457 Reviewed-by: Stefan Zager <szager@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: David Baron <dbaron@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#899617} -- wpt-commits: 3373bcff73e290f95342a9b71c5a967bf47da582 wpt-pr: 29605
jamienicol
pushed a commit
to jamienicol/gecko
that referenced
this issue
Jul 20, 2021
…l be no-op on inlines., a=testonly Automatic update from web-platform-tests [TransformInterop] Make preserve-3d still be no-op on inlines. Make transform-style: preserve-3d still be a no-op on non-replaced inline elements rather than making it force a stacking context and a containing block. This matches Gecko's behavior, and I think the intent of the spec change that this is implementing. The proposal to change the spec to match is in w3c/csswg-drafts#6430 . This change also means we can avoid worrying about fixing the DCHECK() failures triggered by having an additional way of making non-replaced inlines be a containing block for fixed-positioned elements. Fixed: 1226287 Change-Id: Ifeb472de072355001d71f37f3e6bf7c71d085154 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3011457 Reviewed-by: Stefan Zager <szager@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: David Baron <dbaron@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#899617} -- wpt-commits: 3373bcff73e290f95342a9b71c5a967bf47da582 wpt-pr: 29605
jamienicol
pushed a commit
to jamienicol/gecko
that referenced
this issue
Jul 21, 2021
…l be no-op on inlines., a=testonly Automatic update from web-platform-tests [TransformInterop] Make preserve-3d still be no-op on inlines. Make transform-style: preserve-3d still be a no-op on non-replaced inline elements rather than making it force a stacking context and a containing block. This matches Gecko's behavior, and I think the intent of the spec change that this is implementing. The proposal to change the spec to match is in w3c/csswg-drafts#6430 . This change also means we can avoid worrying about fixing the DCHECK() failures triggered by having an additional way of making non-replaced inlines be a containing block for fixed-positioned elements. Fixed: 1226287 Change-Id: Ifeb472de072355001d71f37f3e6bf7c71d085154 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3011457 Reviewed-by: Stefan Zager <szager@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: David Baron <dbaron@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#899617} -- wpt-commits: 3373bcff73e290f95342a9b71c5a967bf47da582 wpt-pr: 29605
Sorry for the slow response. I agree that your proposed wording better reflects the intent, and makes things easier to understand and implement. |
mjfroman
pushed a commit
to mjfroman/moz-libwebrtc-third-party
that referenced
this issue
Oct 14, 2022
Make transform-style: preserve-3d still be a no-op on non-replaced inline elements rather than making it force a stacking context and a containing block. This matches Gecko's behavior, and I think the intent of the spec change that this is implementing. The proposal to change the spec to match is in w3c/csswg-drafts#6430 . This change also means we can avoid worrying about fixing the DCHECK() failures triggered by having an additional way of making non-replaced inlines be a containing block for fixed-positioned elements. Fixed: 1226287 Change-Id: Ifeb472de072355001d71f37f3e6bf7c71d085154 Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/3011457 Reviewed-by: Stefan Zager <szager@chromium.org> Commit-Queue: David Baron <dbaron@chromium.org> Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#899617} NOKEYCHECK=True GitOrigin-RevId: 9d51c5532577eda285ff3621dc8ac2c6d4df274e
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
As discussed in #1950 and as changed in #3750, css-transforms-2 currently says:
I tend to think this should only happen for transformable elements, which are what
transform-style
's Applies to line says it applies to. It's worth noting that the "Applies To" line isn't really defined to do anything other than cause the property not to have a used value.However, I think the intent of this "Applies to" line is that the property only have effects on transformable elements -- i.e., that it shouldn't have effects on non-replaced inlines. In particular, the effect here would be only the third place in CSS where non-replaced inlines could be a containing block for fixed-positioned elements (the other two being
filter
andbackdrop-filter
).So I'd propose changing the wording of the above sentence to instead say:
I think this still fits with the original intent of the wording which is that the effects of grouping properties not be considered in determining whether to establish a containing block or stacking context.
cc @mattwoodrow @smfr
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: