W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2013

Re: [css3-conditional] box-shadow example

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 00:53:50 -0800
Message-Id: <F1852C4D-0EFD-4347-9244-68246849F0F2@gmail.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
On Mar 2, 2013, at 12:00 AM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org> wrote:

> Le 02/03/2013 08:34, Brad Kemper a ¨¦crit :
>> In example 7 of "CSS Conditional Rules Module Level 3" [1], it claims
>> that the @supports is grouping the 'color:white' rule with the
>> 'box-shadow' rules, because the white text would be invisible if
>> box-shadow wasn't supported. That would be true of 'text-shadow' (if the
>> background and everything behind it was white or transparent), but the
>> box-shadow in the example wouldn't make any difference. It goes around
>> the outside of the box, and wouldn't be underneath the text normally
>> (unless we are somehow assuming a negative indent, or a child element
>> with negative margins or something).
>> 
>> 1) http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-conditional/#at-supports
> 
> 
> Proposed fix:
> 
> * Change box-shadow to text-shadow in this example, which is apparently what was intended.
> * Add "(assuming a white background)" after "would cause the text to become invisible". This is the only reason the text would become invisible. Alternatively, add `background: white` to the rule.

Yeah, that would work. The big list of differently prefixed versions would be a bit silly for 'text-shadow', though. Was that property ever prefixed in a browser?
Received on Saturday, 2 March 2013 08:54:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:06 GMT