1993692 - [meta] Take transform of the anchor element into account

Status: NEW

(Core :: Layout: Positioned, enhancement)

Description

[David Shin[:dshin]]

Bug 1988225 comment 2: https://codepen.io/yisi/pen/eYaJopE
Spec resolution: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8584

Comment 1

[一丝]

Chrome bug: https://issues.chromium.org/issues/433747466

Comment 2

[一丝]

Chrome bug: https://issues.chromium.org/issues/433747466

Comment 3

[Jonathan Watt [:jwatt]]

Google sent an intent to ship:
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/48-VhjHY3Lc

Comment 6

[Jake Archibald [:jakea]]

In terms of dev-docs, we should be careful with the wording here so it doesn't get confused with animating popovers in/out. Perhaps avoid mentioning transforms in the headline, and instead say something like:

"Improve anchor positioning reliability", then provide detail like "Previously, anchor positioning would be incorrect if the anchor (or one of its ancestors) had a transform. Now, transforms are considered when positioning relative to an anchor".

Comment 7

[David Shin[:dshin]]

Attachment: Transform + Anchor + Fallbacks

As this testcase demonstrates, derived from :jakea's testcase from Matrix, transformed positions need to be taken into account for containing block overflow.

Comment 8

[Ting-Yu Lin [:TYLin] (PST, UTC-7)]

Transform this into a meta bug

Comment 9

[Sebastian Zartner [:sebo]]

As this is a meta-bug, I assume, there will be a separate bug filed for the implementation, right?
And it should be considered to add the named-feature() function for @supports including the anchor-position-follows-transforms keyword along with it.

Sebastian

Comment 10

[Ting-Yu Lin [:TYLin] (PST, UTC-7)]

As this is a meta-bug, I assume, there will be a separate bug filed for the implementation, right?

Yes, I'll file separate bugs for the implementation once I have a clearer understanding of the details.

And it should be considered to add the named-feature() function for @supports including the anchor-position-follows-transforms keyword along with it.

Cool. I wasn't aware named-features() has a keyword for exactly this feature. We track the implementation of named-features() in Bug 2042977.

Comment 11

[Sebastian Zartner [:sebo]]

(In reply to Ting-Yu Lin [:TYLin] (PST, UTC-7) from comment #10)

Cool. I wasn't aware named-feature() has a keyword for exactly this feature.

Then it's good I pointed that out.😄

We track the implementation of named-feature() in Bug 2042977.

Yep, filed by me a month ago.😉 I've added it as blocker to this bug, so it's not forgotten. You may want to add it to the implementation bugs once they are filed.

Sebastian

Comment 12

[Ting-Yu Lin [:TYLin] (PST, UTC-7)]

You may want to add it to the implementation bugs once they are filed.

Filed Bug 2055354 to implement named-feature (anchor-position-follows-transforms). This turns Bug 2042977 into a meta bug.