On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Elliott Sprehn <[email protected]> wrote:
> If all the isolation property does is create a stacking context [1][2] > then it seems like it should be called stacking-context: true to reveal > it's purpose, > Its purpose is not to create stacking context. It's designed to limit the backdrop for its children with blending. The fact that the spec says to do this using a stacking context, is for implementors; not authors. As Erik Dahlström noted, this property also applies to SVG which has no stacking contexts. [1] > otherwise we're just going to have blog posts about the "secret css hacks" > to create stacking contexts using isolation: isolate as stacking contexts > have all kinds of other side effects. > How would this be different from "will-change: transform;"? That creates a stacking context with the same side effects. > The property also does not seem to be specific to blending, and the > isolation naming is confusing given that there's talk of layout/style > isolation, bidi isolation, and now blend isolation. > It's meant to be used with blending and filters but as with many other properties, it has side effects. The next level of the spec will also reintroduce support for non-isolated blending. Since this is expensive, authors will be able to opt into this with this same property. Non-isolated blending will not introduce a stacking context. I agree that the name is somewhat confusing. We (= mailing list + css group) went over different options a couple of years ago and this was the one that we eventually settled on. 1: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/blink-dev/WoLwgoPB-GE/LITzZ2ifVVsJ
