contentful text doesn't need to check opacity

[shubhamg13]

References

Reference 1

An element target is contentful when one or more of the following apply:

target has a text node child, representing non-empty text, and the node’s used opacity is greater than zero.

Reference 2

An element el is paintable when all of the following apply:

.
el and all of its ancestors' used opacity is greater than zero.

Reference 3

To know whether Document document should report first contentful paint, perform the following steps:

.
If document contains at least one element that is both paintable and contentful, then return true.

Inference

1. opacity of text is already covered while checking paintable (from reference 2)
2. contentful is only valid in conjunction with paintable (from reference 3)

Proposed change:

1. Drop opacity for text (from reference 1) to make it consistent with others

[noamr]

sounds good, care to file a PR?

[jasonwilliams]

@shubhamg13 I think it was wrote out this way because contentful checks the text nodes, where as paintable only checks at element granularity.

So a p::first-line { opacity: 0 } would pass as paintable for the <p>.

This is mentioned in the node within the contentful description

NOTE: this covers the case where a typographical pseudo-element would override the opacity of the text node.

[shubhamg13]

So a p::first-line { opacity: 0 } would pass as paintable for the <p>.

Yeah very right it will pass for <p>.

---

With Reference 2

An element el is paintable when all of the following apply:

.
el and all of its ancestors' used opacity is greater than zero.

But It will fail for ::first-line. Hence caught here.

[jasonwilliams]

But the text node is a child of <p>, so it wouldn't fail for reference 2. Reference 2 is only checking the <p> element's used opacity and above