- From: Ivan Gagis <igagis@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 11:10:13 +0200
- To: Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
As for me, it is ok to just remove the sentence. No idea what was the intention of the sentence, but It does not look correct as 'visibility' is inheritable in all senses. Differences between 'visibility' and 'display' arewell described by other text around. -- Ivan 2018-03-06 3:23 GMT+02:00 Daniel Holbert <dholbert@mozilla.com>: > I'm not entirely sure what that sentence intended to say, offhand. It > might just want to be removed? > > Both of these properties (both "visibility" and "display") are > "inheritable" (in the sense that "inherit" can be specified on the child > and does what you'd expect, style-system-wise). > > Maybe the spec really meant to point out that "display" is not inherited > by default (and yet it still hides its whole subtree)? (Unlike > "visibility", which *is* inherited by default but only operates with its > computed value on a per-element level.) That is indeed a difference > which would be relevant to point out in this chunk of spec text. > > ~Daniel > > On 3/3/18 8:26 AM, Ivan Gagis wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I found an error in SVG 1.1 (Second Edition) spec. >> >> The error is in this chapter: >> https://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/painting.html#VisibilityControl >> >> At the end of the first bullet of the list it says "Note that >> ‘visibility’ is not an inheritable property.". >> Perhaps, it should be about 'display' property instead of 'visibility' >> because 'visibility' is listed as inheritable later. >> >> Br, >> Ivan >> >>
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2018 09:10:47 UTC