Hi Andreas, Thanks for your perseverance ;-)
Andreas L Delmelle a écrit : > On Mar 22, 2007, at 10:05, Vincent Hennebert wrote: > > Hi Vincent, > >> <snip /> >> Well, that's still unclear. The area should be placed like in the >> "absolute" model, plus mustn't move WRT the viewport. >> In case of a continuous media, what should happen if the >> nearest ancestor ref-area doesn't appear yet in the viewport at the >> beginning of the viewing, but only after having scrolled a bit? >> Should the fixed area suddenly appear? > > If the nearest ancestor ref-area is not immediately visible, then I > think this implies that the fixed-area's position is definitely not > relative to the viewport you refer to, but to another nested viewport. Then which one? If there is no block-container in the flow, then the only viewport area is the region-body. And my question remains... > It is only when the latter viewport-area becomes visible that the > fixed-area appears (as a static part of that other viewport). It starts > out at the same position in the viewport as an absolute-positioned area, Invisible, then. Suppose you have to scroll down to make the nearest ancestor ref-area appear, and display the fixed area as soon as the ref-area starts appearing. Then unless "top" is negative the fixed area won't be visible yet. Follow me? > but stays there, no matter how far you scroll down... > >> Where? When the ref-area is scrolled away, should the fixed area >> suddenly disappear? Remain in the viewport? > > When the enclosing /viewport/-area goes out of scope, the fixed area > disappears. As long as the viewport is visible, the fixed area is too. > >> As the idea is probably to mimic the "absolute" and "fixed" value for >> "position" in CSS2, I think the description of "fixed" should not refer >> to the one of "absolute" for placing areas. They should have written >> something like "These properties specify offsets with respect to the >> page's viewport area". > > The term "page" seems too narrow here. Your suggestion would only cover > the case of absolute- or fixed-positioned areas whose nearest ancestor > ref-area is the page-area. No, what I was saying is that the position would be computed WRT to the ancestor page-area (more precisely, the region-reference-area) instead of the nearest ancestor ref-area, whatever it is. > Remember that a "fixed" positioned b-c can be positioned (absolutely) > inside another b-c, and the outer b-c could even be a > relative-positioned one, to add to all the fun... :) > > > Cheers, > > Andreas Vincent
