- From: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
- Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2013 09:00:52 +0100
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Le 02/03/2013 08:34, Brad Kemper a écrit : > 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. -- Simon Sapin
Received on Saturday, 2 March 2013 08:01:17 UTC