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

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

From: Francois Remy <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:07:33 +0200
Message-ID: <D01B3AE9D11847CAB6245892F8132306@FremyCompany1>
To: "Brad Kemper" <brkemper@comcast.net>
Cc: "Henrik Hansen" <henrikb4@gmail.com>, "CSS 3 W3C Group" <www-style@w3.org>
So, I think that "border-shadow" is ready to be implemented in CSS.
But what I'm saying is that the way these "properties" such blur, ... must be implemented should be the same as OOXML.

If I send same data's to OOXML and CSS, the result should be the same.
It's the reason why I've send you this specification

If you say, as you just have done it, that all is supposed to be OK, my message have not missed his purpose.

Anyway, thanks for your feedback,
Fremy
  From: Brad Kemper 
  Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 11:32 PM
  To: Francois Remy 
  Cc: Henrik Hansen ; CSS 3 W3C Group 
  Subject: Re: Box-shadow : Why not follow the standardized OpenXML specification ?




  On Jun 15, 2008, at 11:00 AM, Francois Remy wrote:



    Thanks for your interesting response.


      Text-shadow and box-shadow are quite similar i both function and

      syntax. We've already discussed how we could improve the functionality

      of box-shadow, but of course new features are welcome.


    I think OOXML is not adding a lot of features to your model.

    But it should be great that you have a look to it. Not for follow
    it at 100%, but to be sure that all things that are possible with
    this specification is also possible with yours too.


  From what you have sent, I don't see much that OOMXL adds to what has already been proposed, other than incompatibility with what has already been agreed upon and/or implemented.


    Inner Shadow: Because it is so similar to box-shadow, and because it is a type of box shadow, most would probably agree that it is better to add this as a key word to box-shadow (or a sub-property of a box-shadow-as-shorthand), than to create its own new property that replicates most of what is already present in the box-shadow draft.

    - Blur Radius: already part of box-shadow and text-shadow
    - Direction: many CSS properties use X and Y offsets rather than direction and distance, for more predictable results. 
    Box-shadow and text-shadow follow in that established practice already 
    - Strength: Does that mean distance? See above, for less confusing nomenclature.
    - Color: already part of box-shadow and text-shadow


    The next four do not seem useful for creating drop shadows. Skew (and to some extent, scale) would only seem useful for cast shadows, not drop shadows.  Scale might sometimes be useful for drop shadows, but I don't imagine a large demand for it. Shadow Origin is not needed when you are already using X and Y offsets instead of direction and distance. Rotation of a shadow independent of its object would rarely, if ever, be used.


    - Scale Factor (sX, sY)
    - Skew Factor (kX, kY)
    - Shadow Origin (oX, oY) = (0; 0)
    - Rotation Factor
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2008 18:08:16 GMT

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