On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>wrote: > The argument is *not* that it should be done because it was done for > opacity < 1 or transform != none. The argument is that the extra complexity > is very likely unnecessary in practice because if such scenarios were common > then opacity < 1 would break a lot of pages and/or require workarounds. > Even if the scenarios aren't common, making them behave unexpectedly still has the downside of adding complexity for authors. > The penalty is not high. But it's real and I don't like making things > harder than they need to be simply because 'that's the way it is'. > Especially when several implementors agree that non-visible overflow is more > complex than it needs to be. > Sure, but you're proposing adding more complexity on top of that, from an author's point of view. Rob -- "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." [Acts 17:11]
Received on Monday, 22 November 2010 08:00:53 UTC