Thanks for the follow-up Rik. On 26 April 2015 at 21:14, Rik Cabanier <[email protected]> wrote: > > > During the last TPAC, it was decided that the <svg> element creates a > stacking context. Previously, the spec called out this element as not > causing isolation but people felt that consistency was more important. > So, the special case was dropped and someone was going to update (or > create?) a spec to clearly say what causes stacking contexts. >
Ah, glad there has been a clear decision on this. Does the same decision also apply to the root element of any document type? That was the other area where I found cross-browser inconsistency: Firefox treats the root as isolated, with a transparent black background if no background property is set, while Blink blends content into the opaque white canvas. E.g., see http://fiddle.jshell.net/q53w90j0/1/ which re-creates the additive color figure using absolutely positioned HTML elements. > >> The table for `background-blend-mode` says "Applies to:All HTML >> elements". However, it could apply to any XML content that uses a CSS >> layout model. That includes a top-level inline SVG element; in practice >> (and probably in SVG 2) it would also include a root <svg> element. >> >> A more useful and future-proof description would be "Applies to: Any >> element that renders the `background-image` property". Another way to make >> the same distinction is to use the language from the Transforms spec >> is "elements with (or without) associated CSS layout box". >> > > That would be a normative change which would push the spec back. > Maybe we can address this in level 2? > Fair enough. I'm fairly certain all implementations will apply it to any content with a CSS rendering model, HTML or otherwise, but I wouldn't want such a fussy wording change to throw the whole spec back on the recommendation track.
