- From: Anton Prowse <prowse@moonhenge.net>
- Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2011 11:58:11 +0200
- To: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
- CC: robert@ocallahan.org, Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
On 31/05/2011 05:52, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Boris Zbarsky<bzbarsky@mit.edu> wrote: > >> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/PR-css3-color-20101028/#transparency>Note that >> making the inline a generate a stacking context (which opacity does) doesn't >> help, since for inlines generating stacking contexts the painting specified >> in Appendix E.2 step 6 says to just paint the boxes of the inline that are >> in line boxes and does NOT say to paint the block. This means that the >> block child is painted in the normal way as a block child of the nearest >> ancestor block of the inline in E.2 step 7. >> > > I think we should alter Appendix E step 6 so that it paints the block > children of the inline. > > It seems clear to me that authors would expect the anonymous block be > painted as part of the opacity group. As you say, that requires that the > anonymous block be painted as part of the stacking context for the inline. Me too. It seems to me that this is a mistake in Appendix E which fails to take block children of inlines into account. Cheers, Anton Prowse http://dev.moonhenge.net
Received on Sunday, 3 July 2011 09:59:21 UTC