[css-transforms-1] Effect of transforms on background-attachment:fixed

[smfr]

Comment: http://www.w3.org/mid/42ED583F-AFF2-4D49-B20A-4335C93EEA23@me.com
Response: http://www.w3.org/mid/op.wgl87egg4p7avi@localhost.localdomain
Comment: http://www.w3.org/mid/CAKA+AxnmG8CynocjdOQR-6WrZDa-uGwGpO74KUMBo0W2x8waWA@mail.gmail.com
Notes: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15833

[smfr]

I think we just need a resolution here.

[smfr]

@frivoal do you still have the concerns mentioned in in https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Jun/0674.html, or are you OK with the current spec state?

[frivoal]

I am ok with the spec as it is. It's a trade off, and the upsides seem worth it.

[css-meeting-bot]

The CSS Working Group just discussed Effect of transforms on background attachment fixed, and agreed to the following resolutions:

RESOLVED: Close this issue without any change

The full IRC log of that discussion

<dino> Topic: Effect of transforms on background attachment fixed
<smfr> Github topic: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/933
<dino> dbaron: there are some mozilla tests in the mozilla/import directory. you should look there too.
<dino> smfr: ok. and they have metadata?
<dino> dbaron: yes, but might need updating
<dino> smfr: this issue doesn't need discussion because florian just commented
<dino> smfr: long ago we resolved that b-a:fixed behaves like b-a:scroll if any ancestor has a non-none transform
<dino> smfr: florian had a concern that maybe authors wanted to do something special. he now says he is ok.
<dino> Rossen: have we already resolved?
<dino> <we look for a link to minutes... maybe from Hamburg>
<dino> smfr: i think what we spec is what all browsers implement
<dino> dbaron: it might be weird to people if they use a translate and break b-a:fixed but i'm ok with it
<dino> RESOLVED: Close this issue without any change
<smfr> list of issues with needs-discuss: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Acss-transforms-1+label%3A%22Needs+Group+Input%2FDecision%22

[smfr]

This was resolved.