- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 00:42:18 +0000
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
[fantasai:] > On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com> > wrote: > > [fantasai:] > >> Ok, if we have interop on currentColor, we can update the spec that > way. > >> I'm kindof surprised, because if you do that for text-shadows, it's > >> really almost never the right color. > > > > For text-shadow, I can understand how it's a weird default but that is > > also the interop behavior today. There might be a better default - > > would something half way between foreground and background colors work > > better ? - but the interop and <shadow> consistency are already there. > > I also expect authors to want to pick their shadow colors carefully so > > I don't think it will be a burden in practice. It really is a > testability/interop nitpick more than anything else. > > I know that I've never written a text-shadow without an explicit color, > and have never seen one in the wild without a color either. > They may exist, but I believe they're very minority. We don't really have > to worry about it. I agree we probably don't have to worry about it being currentColor by default. But from a spec standpoint, the fewer undefined 'UA-chosen' knobs the better for implementors, testcases etc. If it doesn't matter in practice then there is no cost in picking a default and eliminate the ambiguity. I would suspect, however, that Elika is right in that a color is specified every single time *because* the default is not really useful. Especially for text. But that is what we have so we might as well specify implementation reality.
Received on Friday, 4 March 2011 00:42:53 UTC