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

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

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 15:52:16 +1200
Message-ID: <BANLkTinCLwCYs5HHDr3Y13WAAC61Vj0dhw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
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.

Rob
-- 
"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for
they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures
every day to see if what Paul said was true." [Acts 17:11]
Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2011 03:52:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:40 GMT