W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2011

Re: [css3-color] Definition of 'opacity' makes no sense for block-inside-inline situations

From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 11:58:11 +0200
Message-ID: <4E103D33.9050008@moonhenge.net>
To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
CC: robert@ocallahan.org, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
On 31/05/2011 05:52, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Boris Zbarsky<bzbarsky@mit.edu>  wrote:
>
>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/PR-css3-color-20101028/#transparency>Note that
>> making the inline a generate a stacking context (which opacity does) doesn't
>> help, since for inlines generating stacking contexts the painting specified
>> in Appendix E.2 step 6 says to just paint the boxes of the inline that are
>> in line boxes and does NOT say to paint the block.  This means that the
>> block child is painted in the normal way as a block child of the nearest
>> ancestor block of the inline in E.2 step 7.
>>
>
> I think we should alter Appendix E step 6 so that it paints the block
> children of the inline.
>
> It seems clear to me that authors would expect the anonymous block be
> painted as part of the opacity group. As you say, that requires that the
> anonymous block be painted as part of the stacking context for the inline.

Me too.  It seems to me that this is a mistake in Appendix E which fails 
to take block children of inlines into account.

Cheers,
Anton Prowse
http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Sunday, 3 July 2011 09:59:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:42 GMT