On Mar 22, 2007, at 10:05, Vincent Hennebert wrote:

Hi Vincent,

<snip />
Well, that's still unclear. The area should be placed like in the
"absolute" model, plus mustn't move WRT the viewport.
In case of a continuous media, what should happen if the
nearest ancestor ref-area doesn't appear yet in the viewport at the
beginning of the viewing, but only after having scrolled a bit?
Should the fixed area suddenly appear?

If the nearest ancestor ref-area is not immediately visible, then I think this implies that the fixed-area's position is definitely not relative to the viewport you refer to, but to another nested viewport. It is only when the latter viewport-area becomes visible that the fixed-area appears (as a static part of that other viewport). It starts out at the same position in the viewport as an absolute-positioned area, but stays there, no matter how far you scroll down...

Where? When the ref-area is scrolled away, should the fixed area
suddenly disappear? Remain in the viewport?

When the enclosing /viewport/-area goes out of scope, the fixed area disappears. As long as the viewport is visible, the fixed area is too.

As the idea is probably to mimic the "absolute" and "fixed" value for
"position" in CSS2, I think the description of "fixed" should not refer
to the one of "absolute" for placing areas. They should have written
something like "These properties specify offsets with respect to the
page's viewport area".

The term "page" seems too narrow here. Your suggestion would only cover the case of absolute- or fixed-positioned areas whose nearest ancestor ref-area is the page-area. Remember that a "fixed" positioned b-c can be positioned (absolutely) inside another b-c, and the outer b-c could even be a relative- positioned one, to add to all the fun... :)


Cheers,

Andreas

Reply via email to