My followers know that I no longer work as a frontend developer, however, I worked as one for nearly 15 years and I was self-taught. I was lucky to...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
The importance of order is already mentioned in the article, although I don't refer to it by the technical term "painting order"
Yes, that's a nuance. But it definitely weighs in the decision.
Actually position: XYZ other than static does create a stacking context as I supposed developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/W...
And point number 5 of the documentation.
All non-positioned floating descendants, in tree order. For each one of these, treat the element as if it created a new stacking context, but any positioned descendants and descendants which actually create a new stacking context should be considered part of the parent stacking context, not this new one.
w3.org/TR/CSS2/zindex.html
Yes, only if z-index is different than auto is true and it's already described in the article. When you give it a position and no z-index at all computed, it also works.
👍
I think we are simply saying exactly the same only that you are going a lot more in-depth than I intended in this article. I did not describe all the edge cases and potential implications because I invited readers to delve in the docs. But it’s cool, however I feel a disconnect when you mention terms such as DOM and tree hierarchy which I never used through my article. I spoke about document flow only. And also some corrections made on incorrect interpretation. So at this point I feel we could reconduct the debate and focus on the original point of the article which I think satisfies the intention. Great talking to you!
That's true. It can also be auto.
I am not sure I say the viewport is a stacking context. I illustrate the stacking context with respect to the viewport.
No, I never say the viewport is a stacking context. I just illustrate it so there is a reference.