You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
both elements' containing blocks are generated by elements, and positioned el’s containing block is an ancestor in the flat tree to that of possible anchor’s containing block.
both elements' containing blocks are generated by elements, and positioned el’s containing block is an ancestor in the flat tree to that of possible anchor’s containing block.
It's really unfortunate that the term absolutely positioned is formally understood to mean "absolutely positioned" or "fixed positioned", because I think we want to be able to say absolutely positioned in places here and not mean fixed positioned.
No, we don't want to distinguish abspos vs fixpos in that way, because a fixpos can act like an abspos given certain ancestor styles. What you actually care about is whether the containing block comes from the viewport, or something else, and that's the distinction I'm making in the algo.
That said, let me look at your actual feedback. ^_^
Yeah, you're right, the anchor there is transitively relying on the ICB, and after the abspos. That'll need fixing.
Yeah same deal.
But it's not about flat tree - in both of those cases, the flat tree is identical to the DOM tree, because there's no shadows involved. I'll just need to do some finessing about ancestors in the abspos containing block tree.
The acceptable anchor text contains the following:
I don't think some of these cases are correct.
For example:
seems to say that this should work:
And:
seems to say that this should work:
In other words, in these two cases we sometimes still require that "
possible anchor
is earlier in flat tree order thanpositioned el
."This seems...hard to spec.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: