W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2008

Re: [CSS3 Text] shadow stacking levels

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 19:50:45 -0800
Message-ID: <479AAE15.7060702@inkedblade.net>
To: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
CC: www-style@w3.org

David Hyatt wrote:
> 
> Sure.  That's even an optimization that I expect we will implement 
> soon.   This is exactly why I think it's dangerous to over-specify how 
> text shadows draw  (box-shadow is at much more predictable, since when 
> borders/backgrounds draw is very well-specified).  Because shadows are 
> tied to the exact drawing operations you make, you really can't 
> guarantee how a browser will render the text shadows in those examples 
> if the shadows overlap adjacent text.
> 
> I still take issue with the "should" sentence, though, in the case where 
> spans are deliberately overlapping (obviously the shadow has no reason 
> to avoid drawing over the other span's text in the negative-margin case).

It's "should avoid", not "must not". I'm not entirely sure where the shadows
should ideally be placed in this case, I'm happy to leave it open. I can
make it even more explicitly open in cases where both the background is
transparent and the text is subject to negative margins, but I think /that/
gets into overspecifying and will lead to careful misinterpretations of what
was "meant" based on which cases were mentioned explicitly and which weren't.
E.g. text layering due to kerning vs negative margins vs whatever.

~fantasai
Received on Saturday, 26 January 2008 03:50:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:00 GMT