W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2012

Re: [css3-text] graphical effects and text-decoration

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 08:14:45 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDOS7oHvHi-1mNoN9GxW6y2JHJv=UAw6MNj46vu1AVrPQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: robert@ocallahan.org
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 2:24 AM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 11:41 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
> wrote:
>> For CSS3, I'm attempting to define this. Considering the painting model
>> (which
>> puts decorations immediately over/under the text), I think it makes the
>> most
>> sense for 'visibility' to affect a piece of text and its text-decorations
>> together, even though the color and position are taken from the decorating
>> ancestor.
> That sounds reasonable, especially because Gecko behaves that way :-).
>> Related questions come up though: what about 'text-shadow'?
>> What about other graphical effects, like filters? 'opacity'?
>> A future property for filling text
>> with a pattern? Should these all have the same answer?
> For consistency, yes.
> I can't think of any reason authors would want to have filters or opacity
> not apply to text decorations. Possibly authors might want to apply
> text-shadow or fill-with-pattern differently to the decorations, but we
> could mint new properties (similar to 'text-decoration-color') if that was
> desirable. Note that SVG defines 'fill' to apply equally to both text and
> its decorations.

Agree with all of this.

Received on Friday, 6 January 2012 16:15:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:54 UTC