- From: Matthew Brealey <thelawnet@yahoo.com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 06:55:38 -0800 (PST)
- To: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
--- Ian Hickson <py8ieh@bath.ac.uk> wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jan 2000, Matthew Brealey wrote: > > Another reason that this approach is better is that it associates > > backgrounds with the line box rather than the text. > > This of course means that text can _easily_ flow outside the background, > which is bad. Not at all. Give me an example of how this could happen. > > [...] > > In fact, the implementation > > What implementation? Do you mean your suggestion? Implementation is not synonymous with suggestion - implementation = the CSS 2 implementation. > > > means that one cannot follow the advice in the spec that states that > > one should always set background colours when one sets foreground > > colours dangerous on inline elements. > > Why? If one does not do as the spec suggests, then one is asking for > conflicts, meaning that text will be unreadable (e.g., black on black). This is highly unlikely. You could probably search night and day for a thousand years and not find someone who sets backgrounds on inlione elements. The reason that it is dangerous is that (particularly on A, which is very commonly set to a different colour) if you set a background on an inline element within a line box of different colour, the things don't get lined up and the result looks stupid. > > As a result, I am forced to disregard this advice. > > Or you could just abandon/change your proposal... I am not referring to my proposal, but rather to the current implementation. ===== ---------------------------------------------------------- From Matthew Brealey (http://members.tripod.co.uk/lawnet (for law)or http://members.tripod.co.uk/lawnet/WEBFRAME.HTM (for CSS)) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com
Received on Thursday, 20 January 2000 09:55:40 UTC