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

Re: Fw: Box-shadow : Why not follow the standardized OpenXML specification ?

From: Francois Remy <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:14:20 +0200
Message-ID: <DA3977CB40F44429946DB323DD77C801@FremyCompany1>
To: "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: "CSS 3 W3C Group" <www-style@w3.org>
I think text-shadow and box-shadow have not the same purpose.

While text-shadow must be simple because we don't need something complex, the box-shadow property must respond to a developer's need that's continuously more complex. 

       CSS must evolve with the developer's needs and not be solidified and immutable.
       
       The actual evolution of all the documents formats is:
       - Transitions (between states, between pages ...)
       - Image and box effects (border, shadows ...)
       - Open and free format
       - Interoperability between formats
       
       I think CSS should follow the same way.

In addition, I think it's possible to use a similar syntax for the two, by adding only some "optional" parameters to the property.

Fremy

--------------------------------------------------
From: "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 9:37 PM
To: "Francois Remy" <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
Cc: "CSS 3 W3C Group" <www-style@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Fw: Box-shadow : Why not follow the standardized OpenXML 
specification  ?

>
> Francois Remy wrote:
>>
>> Box-shadow : Why not follow the standardized OpenXML specification ?
>
> Because we have had a 'text-shadow' property since 1998 and
> any syntax we choose for 'box-shadow' should be consistent
> with that.
>
> ~fantasai
>



GreenGradient_2.jpg
(image/jpeg attachment: GreenGradient_2.jpg)

Received on Friday, 13 June 2008 13:15:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:07 GMT