- From: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:40:10 +0100
- To: "Boris Zbarsky" <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:16:25 +0100, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > On 11/12/09 12:38 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >>> - 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. > > The "wouldn't reach up" is correct. That is, the ancestor draws the > decorations no matter what. The child can draw its own decorations, but > can't make the ancestor's go away. I somehow mistakenly got the impression that the implementations did something else (regarding the child drawing its own). But still, I assume this is specifically about decoration drawn across/along the child element's boxes because of a rule on the parent element. I.e. things like B still getting an underline here: <span style="text-decoration:underline">A<span style="text-decoration:none">B</span>A</span> With the current wording it might as well sound like it's about the underline under the As, which is just confusing. -- Øyvind Stenhaug Core Norway, Opera Software ASA
Received on Friday, 13 November 2009 15:41:05 UTC