W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2000

Re: Inline h*ll

From: Matthew Brealey <thelawnet@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 06:55:38 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <20000120145538.14957.qmail@web906.mail.yahoo.com>
To: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
--- Ian Hickson <py8ieh@bath.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2000, Matthew Brealey wrote:
> > Another reason that this approach is better is that it associates
> > backgrounds with the line box rather than the text.
> This of course means that text can _easily_ flow outside the background,
> which is bad.
Not at all. Give me an example of how this could happen.
> > [...]
> > In fact, the implementation
> What implementation? Do you mean your suggestion?
Implementation is not synonymous with suggestion - implementation = the
CSS 2 implementation.
> > means that one cannot follow the advice in the spec that states that
> > one should always set background colours when one sets foreground
> > colours dangerous on inline elements.
> Why? If one does not do as the spec suggests, then one is asking for
> conflicts, meaning that text will be unreadable (e.g., black on black).
This is highly unlikely. You could probably search night and day for a
thousand years and not find someone who sets backgrounds on inlione

The reason that it is dangerous is that (particularly on A, which is very
commonly set to a different colour) if you set a background on an inline
element within a line box of different colour, the things don't get lined
up and the result looks stupid.

> > As a result, I am forced to disregard this advice.
> Or you could just abandon/change your proposal...
I am not referring to my proposal, but rather to the current implementation.

From Matthew Brealey (http://members.tripod.co.uk/lawnet (for law)or http://members.tripod.co.uk/lawnet/WEBFRAME.HTM (for CSS))
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
Received on Thursday, 20 January 2000 09:55:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:26:52 UTC