W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2003

Re: "inherit"

From: Michael Day <mikeday@yeslogic.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 20:57:38 +1000 (EST)
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0308042053040.5842-100000@lorien.yeslogic.com>


> No. Hopefully the last few places where that was ambiguous in the 2.1 spec
> are being cleared up, too (in particular, 'font: 1em inherit').

Good.

> The initial value of 'color' is UA defined, it could be, e.g., 'black'.
> This is probably the value of one of the system colours. The WG is going
> away from system colours, however, in favour of the 'appearance' property.

Yes, I was wondering however whether the "initial color" deserved its own
keyword, considering that "initial" in this case is specifying something
that cannot be specified in any other way, unlike other properties, where
"initial" is merely a convenient shorthand for an existing keyword/value.

> That's impossible anyway at the moment (the initial value of
> 'border-*-color' is 'the value of the color property' not 'the initial
> color').

Yes, the initial value of border-*-color is CurrentColor. Which was really
my point, the initial color does not exist as an actual *color*, and I was
wondering whether it should.

> However, I don't see a use case for this. When would you want to
> set the border-color in this way? Or, for that matter, any other colour?

Fine :) It is more from a symmetry point of view than an authoring point
of view; having a color that can be accessed in one way but not in others
feels awkward.

Michael

-- 
YesLogic Prince prints XML!
http://yeslogic.com
Received on Monday, 4 August 2003 06:55:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:23 GMT