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

Re: [css-text-decor-3] Is handling of no-<color> text-shadow for text decorations intentional?

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 15:27:11 -0700
Message-ID: <51897FBF.7090508@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 05/06/2013 11:06 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-text-decor-3/#text-shadow-property
> specifies how to handle the omission of <color> only by reference to
> http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/#the-box-shadow , which says
> that when the <color> part of a shadow is omitted, the 'color'
> property is used.
>
> In Gecko, which I believe implemented text-shadow before this was
> specified, we instead shadow the color that was drawn.  For text,
> this yields the same result, but for text decorations, it yields a
> different result.
>
> Compare, for example, the following:
> http://software.hixie.ch/utilities/js/live-dom-viewer/?%3C!DOCTYPE%20html%3E%0A%3Cstyle%3E%0Abody%20%7B%20text-decoration%3A%20underline%3B%20color%3A%20green%20%7D%0Ap%20%7B%20color%3A%20blue%3B%20text-decoration%3A%20overline%20%7D%0Aspan%20%7B%20text-shadow%3A%201em%201.4em%2C%202em%202.8em%20silver%3B%20color%3A%20maroon%20%7D%0A%3C%2Fstyle%3E%0A%3Cp%3E%3Cspan%3Ehello%3C%2Fspan%3E
> in both Chrome (follows current spec) and Firefox.
>
> Is this choice of behavior intentional?  If not, which is
> preferable?

It's not intentional, and I currently have no opinion on this.

An interesting question: what color should it be once we can
do patterned fills?

~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 7 May 2013 22:27:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 7 May 2013 22:27:41 UTC