Anders, Thanks for this clarification. See below for a further question. Anders Berglund wrote: >>My confusion arises from uncertainty as to what the phrase "as a unit" >>means. I assume that the result is 1), and that "as a unit" implies >>that, even though only "space-before" is defined as inheriting, the >>current state of the space-before "object" is what is inherited. > > > You are correct in saying that the space-before "object" is what is > inherited and thus the result is 1). > > Note that the space-before "object" has, potentially, had some > "value fixup" in case of inconsistent values (see the <space> datatype > definition in 5.11). It is for this reason that the individual > components are not inherited independently. > Given that the use of property-value functions with compounds is restricted, and that the inherited value is the computed value, doesn't this amount to the same thing as "normal" inheritance? > >>If that is so, is there any functional difference in treating short-form >>compound properties as shorthands _with inheritance capability_, and >>treating the specific forms of an inheritable compound as themselves >>inheritable? Peter -- Peter B. West <http://cv.pbw.id.au/> Folio <http://defoe.sourceforge.net/folio/> <http://folio.bkbits.net/>Received on Tuesday, 15 March 2005 01:54:05 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 10 August 2007 00:11:45 GMT