W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2010

Re: Nested :first-letter

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 19:02:40 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTimkUtpBthiMqf2JGixd0SzArS-u=8So7Zr+dQky@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 6:34 PM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote:
> On 9/8/10 9:24 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>
>> As far as I can tell, that's not quite true.  See above.
>
> How is it not true?  Conceptually, in the "above" case, the descendant block
> generates a first-letter, that first-letter is completely unstyled (just
> like it would be with a rule like |::first-letter {}|), and you get the
> observed behavior.

Hmm, I suppose that ::first-letter doesn't have the same guarantee as
::before, ::after, and ::marker that it's only generated in
appropriate circumstances (for ::before and ::after, when their
content is set to not-'none', for ::marker when its superior parent
has display:list-item).

So sure, your position is defensible.

> In general, an obvious invariant here should be that adding the rule
>
>  :first-letter {}
>
> should never change anything having to do with first letters, right?

Right.  That wouldn't have an effect if ::first-letters were only
generated upon request, though, as long as they were properly
generated for all blocks that requested them.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 9 September 2010 02:03:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:31 GMT