- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 08:14:45 -0800
- To: robert@ocallahan.org
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 2:24 AM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 11:41 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> > wrote: >> For CSS3, I'm attempting to define this. Considering the painting model >> (which >> puts decorations immediately over/under the text), I think it makes the >> most >> sense for 'visibility' to affect a piece of text and its text-decorations >> together, even though the color and position are taken from the decorating >> ancestor. > > > That sounds reasonable, especially because Gecko behaves that way :-). > >> Related questions come up though: what about 'text-shadow'? >> >> What about other graphical effects, like filters? 'opacity'? >> >> A future property for filling text >> with a pattern? Should these all have the same answer? > > > For consistency, yes. > > I can't think of any reason authors would want to have filters or opacity > not apply to text decorations. Possibly authors might want to apply > text-shadow or fill-with-pattern differently to the decorations, but we > could mint new properties (similar to 'text-decoration-color') if that was > desirable. Note that SVG defines 'fill' to apply equally to both text and > its decorations. Agree with all of this. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 6 January 2012 16:15:42 UTC