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

Re: [CSS21] text-decoration/visibility

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:45:36 -0800
Message-ID: <4B0AE660.9020800@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
L. David Baron wrote:
> 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.

I believe that was indeed the model in mind during the last set of
revisions.

~fantasai
Received on Monday, 23 November 2009 19:46:16 GMT

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