Arved,

        4.9.6 Layering and Conflict of Marks

has

"If A and B are areas with the same stacking layer, the backgrounds of A 
and B come beneath all other marks generated by A and B. Further, if A 
is an ancestor of B (still with the same stacking layer), then the 
background of A is beneath all the areas of B, and all the areas of B 
are beneath the intrinsic areas (and border) of A.

"If A and B have the same stacking layer and neither is an ancestor of 
the other, then it is an error if either their backgrounds conflict or 
if a non-background mark of A conflicts with a non-background mark of B. 
An implementation may recover by proceeding as if the marks from the 
first area in the pre-order traversal order are beneath those of the 
other area."


Reading the rest of the section, I would assume that in the absence of 
any specific z-index values, all of the descendants of the region share 
the region's z-index.  In that case the first of the paragraphs above 
would seem to hold, which would put the region backgound at the bottom. 
 Fortunately the regions generate no intrinsic marks.  In the case of 
conflicts (second paragraph) the marks generated at the region would 
still be on the bottom.

Peter

Arved Sandstrom wrote:

>The only thing that may cause a problem with this interpretation, if outer
>regions are being used, is in rendering conflict of marks. You cannot
>specify z-index on regions so this only works if you can guarantee that
>region-body gets rendered first, and I don't know if that is a spec
>requirement.
>
>  
>



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to