>----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
>Van: Vincent Hennebert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Hi Vincent,

<snip />
>> OK, take the region-body as an example, with overflowing content and a
>> fixed-positioned block-container that is a descendant of a block that
>> initially falls outside the region-viewport, and thus is not immediately
>> visible. Same as an absolute-positioned block-container, it will appear
>> at a certain position in the region-viewport-area (regardless of where
>> it was specified, or whether the containing block is visible or not).
>If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that if the fixed
>positioned block's nearest ref-area is not initially visible, then the
>top/left/etc. properties should be taken WRT the region-viewport-area?

Almost... What I'm saying is that if the fixed-positioned block's nearest 
ancestor reference area is not visible, then the viewport-area will also not be 
visible. I've been searching around, but could not immediately find an example 
of a situation where a reference-area is established without an accompanying 
viewport-area. Regular fo:blocks generate normal block areas, which are not 

>I would really not agree with that. Besides the fact that that would
>complicate the implementation, I think that if the fixed area turns out
>to not be visible, then it will never be. Anyway if you give arbitrarily
>great values to top/left/etc. you /will/ get an area that lies outside
>the viewport-area, regardless of the value of the overflow property.

Indeed, that was a situation I conveniently left out of scope for now, but this 
is also possible and legitimate.



Reply via email to