W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > September 2011

Re: [RC5, pre-RC6] list-style-position-applies-to-* testcases: inheritance of list-style-position versus applicability

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 09:45:08 -0700
To: Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
Cc: "css21testsuite@gtalbot.org" <css21testsuite@gtalbot.org>, Public CSS test suite mailing list <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20110901164508.GA8310@pickering.dbaron.org>
(The test URLs that began this thread don't work anymore, so I can't
express an opinion on the tests.)

On Wednesday 2011-08-31 18:36 +0000, Arron Eicholz wrote:
> The application
> of a property from the applies-to definition is trying to
> communicate that if a property does not apply then the property is
> reset to the initial value when specified on that type of element.

That is incorrect.
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/cascade.html#computed-value (6.1.2
Computed values) says:

  # The computed value of a property is determined as specified by
  # the Computed Value line in the definition of the property. See
  # the section on inheritance for the definition of computed values
  # when the specified value is 'inherit'.
  # The computed value exists even when the property does not apply,
  # as defined by the 'Applies To' line. However, some properties
  # may define the computed value of a property for an element to
  # depend on whether the property applies to that element.

In other words, the "Applies To" line only affects inheritance when
the "Computed Value" line says so explicitly; otherwise it has no
effect on inheritance.


𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla Corporation               http://www.mozilla.com/   𝄂
Received on Thursday, 1 September 2011 16:45:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:13:23 UTC