- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:38:18 -0600
- To: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com> wrote: > On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:26:18 +0100, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > >> They treat it identically in standards mode (and correctly per spec, which >> does fully specify this). > > Reading http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/text.html#lining-striking-props I don't > find the spec very clear at all. > > - It doesn't say that the decorations are propagated when specified on an > inline (unless I'm misunderstanding the meaning of "box generated by that > element" and/or "text of an element") They shouldn't be propagated (in fact, there's a note that doing so is a mistake), but they should still be applied to the entire inline, descendants and all. > - It's not very obvious that visibility:hidden on an element (apparently) > applies to decorations specified on that element (making them invisible, > also when propagating) but not to propagated decorations specified on an > ancestor Yeah, that's not clear. I'm not sure where that's being gotten from. > - As for decoration specified on a given element being ignored if the same > type (e.g. underline, line-through) is propagated from an ancestor, is that > what "cannot have any effect on the decoration of the ancestor" is meant to > say? If so, maybe it would be clearer if, say, "of" were to be replaced with > "propagated from". Hmm, I assumed the reverse - that it simply wouldn't reach up and change the ancestor's decoration. But your reading makes more sense. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 12 November 2009 17:39:10 UTC