- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2013 00:53:50 -0800
- To: Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
On Mar 2, 2013, at 12:00 AM, Simon Sapin <simon.sapin@exyr.org> wrote: > Le 02/03/2013 08:34, Brad Kemper a ¨¦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?
Received on Saturday, 2 March 2013 08:54:19 UTC