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

Re: [CSS21] text-decoration/visibility

From: Řyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:40:10 +0100
To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.u3ca480oru61ud@oyvinds-desktop>
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:16:25 +0100, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:

> On 11/12/09 12:38 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>> - 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.
>
> The "wouldn't reach up" is correct.  That is, the ancestor draws the  
> decorations no matter what.  The child can draw its own decorations, but  
> can't make the ancestor's go away.

I somehow mistakenly got the impression that the implementations did  
something else (regarding the child drawing its own). But still, I assume  
this is specifically about decoration drawn across/along the child  
element's boxes because of a rule on the parent element. I.e. things like  
B still getting an underline here:
<span style="text-decoration:underline">A<span  
style="text-decoration:none">B</span>A</span>
With the current wording it might as well sound like it's about the  
underline under the As, which is just confusing.

-- 
Řyvind Stenhaug
Core Norway, Opera Software ASA
Received on Friday, 13 November 2009 15:41:05 GMT

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