- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 17:02:34 +0900
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Saturday 2013-03-02 00:53 -0800, Brad Kemper wrote: > On Mar 2, 2013, at 12:00 AM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org> wrote: > > > Le 02/03/2013 08:34, Brad Kemper a Γ©crit : > >> In example 7 of "CSS Conditional Rules Module Level 3" [1], it claims > >> that the @supports is grouping the 'color:white' rule with the > >> 'box-shadow' rules, because the white text would be invisible if > >> box-shadow wasn't supported. That would be true of 'text-shadow' (if the > >> background and everything behind it was white or transparent), but the > >> box-shadow in the example wouldn't make any difference. It goes around > >> the outside of the box, and wouldn't be underneath the text normally > >> (unless we are somehow assuming a negative indent, or a child element > >> with negative margins or something). > >> > >> 1) http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-conditional/#at-supports > > > > > > Proposed fix: > > > > * Change box-shadow to text-shadow in this example, which is apparently what was intended. > > * Add "(assuming a white background)" after "would cause the text to become invisible". This is the only reason the text would become invisible. Alternatively, add `background: white` to the rule. > > Yeah, that would work. The big list of differently prefixed versions would be a bit silly for 'text-shadow', though. Was that property ever prefixed in a browser? I don't think it was. So I continued using box-shadow, but instead made the example make more sense by using the box-shadow as an alternative to a border: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/csswg/rev/a738b83fd597 https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/csswg/rev/9421e8cccd2e -David -- π L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ π π’ Mozilla http://www.mozilla.org/ π
Received on Monday, 3 June 2013 08:03:09 UTC