W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2009

Re: [CSS21] text-decoration/visibility

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:38:18 -0600
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0911120938r4a6a795dp85f7dc162fde8ecb@mail.gmail.com>
To: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:26:18 +0100, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> They treat it identically in standards mode (and correctly per spec, which
>> does fully specify this).
>
> Reading http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/text.html#lining-striking-props I don't
> find the spec very clear at all.
>
> - It doesn't say that the decorations are propagated when specified on an
> inline (unless I'm misunderstanding the meaning of "box generated by that
> element" and/or "text of an element")

They shouldn't be propagated (in fact, there's a note that doing so is
a mistake), but they should still be applied to the entire inline,
descendants and all.

> - It's not very obvious that visibility:hidden on an element (apparently)
> applies to decorations specified on that element (making them invisible,
> also when propagating) but not to propagated decorations specified on an
> ancestor

Yeah, that's not clear.  I'm not sure where that's being gotten from.

> - As for decoration specified on a given element being ignored if the same
> type (e.g. underline, line-through) is propagated from an ancestor, is that
> what "cannot have any effect on the decoration of the ancestor" is meant to
> say? If so, maybe it would be clearer if, say, "of" were to be replaced with
> "propagated from".

Hmm, I assumed the reverse - that it simply wouldn't reach up and
change the ancestor's decoration.  But your reading makes more sense.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 12 November 2009 17:39:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:22 GMT