- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 03:57:30 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 05/07/2013 06:27 PM, fantasai wrote: > On 05/06/2013 11:06 PM, L. David Baron wrote: >> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-text-decor-3/#text-shadow-property >> specifies how to handle the omission of <color> only by reference to >> http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-background/#the-box-shadow , which says >> that when the <color> part of a shadow is omitted, the 'color' >> property is used. >> >> In Gecko, which I believe implemented text-shadow before this was >> specified, we instead shadow the color that was drawn. For text, >> this yields the same result, but for text decorations, it yields a >> different result. > > It's not intentional, and I currently have no opinion on this. Edited per WG resolution http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013May/0377.html # If the color of the shadow is not specified, the shadow has # the color of the ink it shadows; that is, it matches the # ‘color’ property when shadowing text, and the ‘text-decoration-color’ # property when shadowing text decorations. However, there's an open issue here: what happens if the colors are semi-transparent? Are we shadowing the text and the decorations individually, or the composite text+decorations? I think the latter makes the most sense, especially when we consider the simple case of solid text. > An interesting question: what color should it be once we can > do patterned fills? This question still stands. ~fantasai
Received on Monday, 10 June 2013 07:58:01 UTC