Re: [css3-color] Definition of 'opacity' makes no sense for block-inside-inline situations

On 3/07/2011 7:58 PM, Anton Prowse wrote:
> On 31/05/2011 05:52, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
>> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Boris Zbarsky<> wrote:
>>> <>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

I have noticed that this does not just apply to opacity but to normal 
background-color. Consider this test case. Why does the anonymous block 
(with inlines) of the paragraph, not have a background-color?

<!doctype html>
<style type="text/css">
p {background: green; border: 10px solid blue; }
div {background: red; }
<p><div>Block</div> This paragraph should have a green background.</p>

Alan Gresley

Received on Sunday, 3 July 2011 11:41:37 UTC