>----- Oorspronkelijk bericht ----- >Van: Vincent Hennebert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Vincent, <snip /> >> OK, take the region-body as an example, with overflowing content and a >> fixed-positioned block-container that is a descendant of a block that >> initially falls outside the region-viewport, and thus is not immediately >> visible. Same as an absolute-positioned block-container, it will appear >> at a certain position in the region-viewport-area (regardless of where >> it was specified, or whether the containing block is visible or not). > >If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that if the fixed >positioned block's nearest ref-area is not initially visible, then the >top/left/etc. properties should be taken WRT the region-viewport-area? Almost... What I'm saying is that if the fixed-positioned block's nearest ancestor reference area is not visible, then the viewport-area will also not be visible. I've been searching around, but could not immediately find an example of a situation where a reference-area is established without an accompanying viewport-area. Regular fo:blocks generate normal block areas, which are not reference-areas... >I would really not agree with that. Besides the fact that that would >complicate the implementation, I think that if the fixed area turns out >to not be visible, then it will never be. Anyway if you give arbitrarily >great values to top/left/etc. you /will/ get an area that lies outside >the viewport-area, regardless of the value of the overflow property. Indeed, that was a situation I conveniently left out of scope for now, but this is also possible and legitimate. Cheers, Andreas