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

Re: [CSS21] text-decoration/visibility

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:38:38 -0800
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <20091118053838.GA4624@pickering.dbaron.org>
On Friday 2009-11-13 14:02 -0500, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
> On 11/13/09 1:26 PM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
>> Yes, I'm not sure why relative positioning on B's box should be
>> expected to take anything out of boxes that contain it.
>
> Because the mental model at least some people seem to have of relative  
> positioning is that it's a purely graphical effect: you paint the thing  
> into its own surface, and then composite the surface with an offset.
>
> Or something.  This is the only way I can explain some of the  
> requirements on relative positioning in the spec...
>
> Note that neither Webkit nor Gecko actually implement this behavior at  
> this time; Opera does; I don't have IE8 on hand right this second to  
> check.  I can guarantee that for Gecko in standards mode the parent (the  
> one the text-decoration is specified on) in fact paints the text  
> decorations, period.

I think the new model of text-decoration (based on my memory of
working group meetings, without actually rechecking minutes) is
based roughly on the idea that the text decorations are painted
along with the text (and thus, in my opinion, would get moved with
relative positioning).  It's just what decorations that are needed,
and their positions and thicknesses, are based on the
'text-decoration' property specified on certain ancestors.

-David

-- 
L. David Baron                                 http://dbaron.org/
Mozilla Corporation                       http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 05:39:06 GMT

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