W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 1999

Re: underline overline

From: Matthew Brealey <thelawnet@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 16:04:47 GMT
Message-Id: <199911261604.KAA25873@x21.deja.com>
To: www-style@w3.org
Note - cross-post to CIWAS and www-style@w3.org
In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.991125164213.19669A-100000@is7.nyu.edu>,
  Michael Hamm <msh210@nyu.edu> wrote:
> <URL:http://skinandbones.net/wwwboard/faq.html> and
> <URL:http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=549189690&fmt=text> have
different
> ways of applying underline and overline to the same text. Both work in
> IE4. Is either correct? Is there another way that works, or that is
> correct, or both?
The way here is wrong.

It's amazing how many mistakes can be made in such a small amount of
code.

E.g. color: 5EAEAE - missing hash.

Also Jukka.Korpela@hut.fi wrote:
JK> I think it's incorrect - a text-decoration property for an element
JK> must have exactly one value.
But that one value can be two words - correct would be text-decoration:
underline overline;

JK> What would be correct by the specs, AFAICS, is to have nested
elements
JK> so that the inner has text-decoration:underline and the outer has
JK> text-decoration:overline.
This is horrendous - CSS is meant to separate style from content/markup.

JK> However there is an enigmatic statement in
the CSS2 spec:
JK> "This property is not inherited, but descendant boxes of a block box
should be formatted with the same decoration (e.g., they should all be
underlined)."
JK> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/text.html#propdef-text-decoration
JK> Does "should" mean a recommendation as regards to authoring
practice,
JK> or what?
This is part of the problem of non-capitalisation of key words - if they
were capitalised, this ambiguity would not occur.

JK> Strangely, right now I can't make Netscape 4 or Opera 3.6 apply
JK> overline at all, though the Master Compatibility Chart says that
they
JK> support text-decoration:overline.

Opera does, Netscape doesn't.
Received on Friday, 26 November 1999 11:05:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:01 GMT