<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes" ?>
<!DOCTYPE bugzilla SYSTEM "https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/page.cgi?id=bugzilla.dtd">

<bugzilla version="5.0.4"
          urlbase="https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/"
          
          maintainer="sysbot+bugzilla@w3.org"
>

    <bug>
          <bug_id>17521</bug_id>
          
          <creation_ts>2012-06-16 22:47:55 +0000</creation_ts>
          <short_desc>Revise of background-attachment: fixed and transforms [editorial]</short_desc>
          <delta_ts>2012-10-19 19:46:20 +0000</delta_ts>
          <reporter_accessible>1</reporter_accessible>
          <cclist_accessible>1</cclist_accessible>
          <classification_id>1</classification_id>
          <classification>Unclassified</classification>
          <product>CSS</product>
          <component>Transforms</component>
          <version>unspecified</version>
          <rep_platform>PC</rep_platform>
          <op_sys>All</op_sys>
          <bug_status>RESOLVED</bug_status>
          <resolution>FIXED</resolution>
          
          
          <bug_file_loc></bug_file_loc>
          <status_whiteboard></status_whiteboard>
          <keywords></keywords>
          <priority>P2</priority>
          <bug_severity>normal</bug_severity>
          <target_milestone>---</target_milestone>
          
          
          <everconfirmed>1</everconfirmed>
          <reporter name="Simon Fraser">smfr</reporter>
          <assigned_to name="Simon Fraser">smfr</assigned_to>
          <cc>ayg</cc>
    
    <cc>cmarrin</cc>
    
    <cc>dbaron</cc>
    
    <cc>dino</cc>
    
    <cc>dschulze</cc>
    
    <cc>eoconnor</cc>
    
    <cc>smfr</cc>
    
    <cc>sylvaing</cc>
          
          <qa_contact>public-css-bugzilla</qa_contact>

      

      

      

          <comment_sort_order>oldest_to_newest</comment_sort_order>  
          <long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>69158</commentid>
    <comment_count>0</comment_count>
    <who name="Simon Fraser">smfr</who>
    <bug_when>2012-06-16 22:47:55 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>The spec describes a behavior for background-attachment:fixed where the transformed element behaves as if it were a &quot;porthole&quot; through which the fixed background shows.

This is tricky, but implementable for 2D transforms, but very difficult for implementors of 3D transforms.

We may wish to punt and just say that any background-attachment:fixed on an element that is transformed, or has a transformed container, behaves like background-attachment:scroll.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>69161</commentid>
    <comment_count>1</comment_count>
    <who name="Aryeh Gregor">ayg</who>
    <bug_when>2012-06-17 09:53:30 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>I&apos;m okay with this if implementers agree.  What do other implementers think?  If it&apos;s easy for some implementers but not others, and if we agree that the proposed behavior is a punt and not really correct, I&apos;d say we should leave the spec more &quot;correct&quot; for now even though we know not all implementations will be able to make it -- much like for intersections.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>69293</commentid>
    <comment_count>2</comment_count>
    <who name="L. David Baron (Mozilla)">dbaron</who>
    <bug_when>2012-06-20 17:03:53 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>Another option is to say that you draw the same piece of background as though there were no transforms, and then you transform it.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>69294</commentid>
    <comment_count>3</comment_count>
      <attachid>1145</attachid>
    <who name="Simon Fraser">smfr</who>
    <bug_when>2012-06-20 17:05:06 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>Created attachment 1145
Testcase</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>69323</commentid>
    <comment_count>4</comment_count>
    <who name="Sylvain Galineau">sylvaing</who>
    <bug_when>2012-06-21 14:21:28 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>IE10 Release Preview does what David suggests i.e.:  
1. Render the fixed background as if there were no transform
2. Transform the result from #1

As a result:
- Subsequent adjustments to the position of the element preserves the &apos;porthole&apos;-like behavior of background-attachment:fixed i.e. as the element moves around its background continues to adjust
- But any transform applied to the element applies to the rendering of the fixed background within that element.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>69427</commentid>
    <comment_count>5</comment_count>
    <who name="L. David Baron (Mozilla)">dbaron</who>
    <bug_when>2012-06-26 18:34:07 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>(In reply to comment #2)
&gt; Another option is to say that you draw the same piece of background as though
&gt; there were no transforms, and then you transform it.

This is also what we already do (although we don&apos;t get the invalidation right when scrolling), and it&apos;s our preference as well.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>69456</commentid>
    <comment_count>6</comment_count>
    <who name="Simon Fraser">smfr</who>
    <bug_when>2012-06-27 17:01:07 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>Proposal at &lt;http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Jun/0635.html&gt;</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>69900</commentid>
    <comment_count>7</comment_count>
    <who name="Simon Fraser">smfr</who>
    <bug_when>2012-07-12 18:12:46 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>Consensus is to follow my proposal.

One final question: for an element with a transform or transformed ancestor, what&apos;s the computed value for background-attachment, if the specified value is &apos;fixed&apos;?</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>69901</commentid>
    <comment_count>8</comment_count>
    <who name="Simon Fraser">smfr</who>
    <bug_when>2012-07-12 18:28:06 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/csswg/rev/8039e489eeb0

Leaving bug open for the computed style issue.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>69906</commentid>
    <comment_count>9</comment_count>
    <who name="L. David Baron (Mozilla)">dbaron</who>
    <bug_when>2012-07-12 19:11:52 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>My inclination is that it&apos;s better for the computed value not to change (i.e., still be &apos;fixed&apos; even if it won&apos;t actually be fixed).</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>71130</commentid>
    <comment_count>10</comment_count>
    <who name="Sylvain Galineau">sylvaing</who>
    <bug_when>2012-07-18 22:25:42 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>I would also background-attachment&apos;s computed value to remain &apos;fixed&apos; in thie case; the property&apos;s computed value is &apos;as specified&apos; and I&apos;d rather leave it that way. We&apos;re only changing the used value.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>76698</commentid>
    <comment_count>11</comment_count>
    <who name="Dirk Schulze">dschulze</who>
    <bug_when>2012-10-19 15:08:25 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>*** Bug 19636 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>76711</commentid>
    <comment_count>12</comment_count>
    <who name="Simon Fraser">smfr</who>
    <bug_when>2012-10-19 17:13:45 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>We resolved that the computed values are not affected.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>76714</commentid>
    <comment_count>13</comment_count>
    <who name="Dirk Schulze">dschulze</who>
    <bug_when>2012-10-19 17:20:08 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>Do we need to state this on the spec?</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>76715</commentid>
    <comment_count>14</comment_count>
    <who name="Dirk Schulze">dschulze</who>
    <bug_when>2012-10-19 17:26:53 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>What about this sentence at the end of the paragraph, right before the issue text: &quot;The computed style of &apos;background-attached&apos; is not affected.&quot; If it is ok, I go ahead and do the change.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>76716</commentid>
    <comment_count>15</comment_count>
    <who name="Simon Fraser">smfr</who>
    <bug_when>2012-10-19 17:42:59 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>The same issue applies to transform-style when combined with opacity. I think it&apos;s fine to say that the computed value of the property is not affected.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>76744</commentid>
    <comment_count>16</comment_count>
    <who name="Dirk Schulze">dschulze</who>
    <bug_when>2012-10-19 19:46:20 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>Fixed after 177d757a1f34.</thetext>
  </long_desc>
      
          <attachment
              isobsolete="0"
              ispatch="0"
              isprivate="0"
          >
            <attachid>1145</attachid>
            <date>2012-06-20 17:05:06 +0000</date>
            <delta_ts>2012-06-20 17:05:06 +0000</delta_ts>
            <desc>Testcase</desc>
            <filename>background-fixed-transformed.html</filename>
            <type>text/html</type>
            <size>1766</size>
            <attacher name="Simon Fraser">smfr</attacher>
            
              <data encoding="base64">PCFET0NUWVBFIGh0bWw+Cgo8aHRtbD4KPGhlYWQ+CiAgPHN0eWxlPgogICAgYm9keSB7CiAgICAg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=
</data>

          </attachment>
      

    </bug>

</bugzilla>