- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:45:12 -0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Thursday 2009-11-12 11:38 -0600, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Øyvind Stenhaug <oyvinds@opera.com> 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. My understanding of the model has always been that if both ancestor and descendant specify text-decoration, you can get two text-decorations drawn on top of each other (and, depending on font metrics, the inner one may or may not cover up the outer). The only concrete use case I can come up with for multiple nested text-decorations of the same type is something like: :link, :visited { text-decoration: underline; } sup { text-decoration: underline; vertical-align: super; font-size: 0.7em; } <a href="...">en el 1<sup>o</sup> caso</a> [1] in which I suspect this may be the desired behavior (assuming that the author wasn't using the appropriate Unicode codepoint, which they probably should be for this case, but perhaps not for other less common cases). -David [1] see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/1%C2%BA -- L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 05:45:50 UTC