- From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:34:19 +0100 (BST)
- To: www-style@w3.org
> inherited or not: the inheritance issue is not the problem. Since the > border of a cell may be specified by a col property and a column can > not be known until the layout has occurred then the value of the > boarder property for an individual cell can not be known. Besides, the border is handled by having special case rules for borders in tables. Those rules don't affect the inheritance only the rendering. They use the border calculated border valud on a finite number of cells and use an algorithm that considers some borders (based on width and style) better than others. Colours are different because transparent isn't the default colour attribute value (inherit is), whereas no border is the default border, and because I doubt there is any way that you could make one colour better than another that would make everyone happy. The point about default colour is important, because it means that a tr with no explicit with an explicitly coloured table behaves the same as a tr that is explicitly styled with the same colour as the table. As such, setting the colour explicitly on tr wouldn't, if using rules like those used for border, be any different from just setting it on the table if all other colours, except that on column were to default. Incidentally, you should be able to specify colour on col, it's just that nothing that is rendered in foreground inherits from column. > background property supports the inherit parameter. Does it break the > CSS model if I specify inherit on one of the supported properties ? I'm not sure I understand this, but the background of a column is rendered onto the column, not the cell, and generally only shows through because the default background is transparent.
Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2005 23:17:01 UTC