On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 7:31 PM, Ian Hickson <i...@hixie.ch> wrote: > On Wed, 18 Dec 2013, Brian Blakely wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Ian Hickson <i...@hixie.ch> wrote: > > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2013, Brian Blakely wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Ian Hickson <i...@hixie.ch> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I've added a rule to the spec that says that viewports have to be > > > > > pannable so you can see all of a dialog, but I don't know how > > > > > feasible that really is. > > > > > > > > I could see implementations using shadow <div>s to satisfy this It > > > > might be beneficial to even codify kind of element as ::modal, > > > > representing a modal layer acting as an ancestor for both the > > > > ::backdrop and <dialog>. > > > > > > Not really sure how this would work. Can you elaborate? > > > > This is what the shadow DOM would look like for modal dialogs: > > > > ::modal > > - ::backdrop > > - <dialog> > > > > ::modal is <dialog>'s ancestor, and is available when showModal is > > called. This allows authors to set CSS overflow to whichever value suits > > their use-case, and for user agents to establish overflow: auto as the > > default, making the dialog inherently pannable when it exceeds the > > viewport. > > That seem somewhat novel, from the CSS perspective. I'll have to defer to > implementors as to how feasible something like that is. So far, the > feedback doesn't seem positive: >
::modal is essentially a named alias for ::outside ( http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-content/#wrapping), which, sadly, has not been implemented anywhere and hasn't seen public movement in quite a long while.