On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 03:54:19 +0100, Rik Cabanier <[email protected]>
wrote:
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
Was having a 'blend-' prefix ever discussed (as in: blend-isolation)? I
couldn't find any mentions of it when searching through the w3
mailinglists.
Would 'blend-isolation' be an acceptable new name?
--
Erik Dahlstrom, Web Technology Developer, Opera Software
Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
