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

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

From: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:49:05 +1000
Message-ID: <4858F631.9020107@css-class.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brkemper@comcast.net>
CC: Frode Børli <frode@seria.no>, Francois Remy <fremycompany_pub@yahoo.fr>, Henrik Hansen <henrikb4@gmail.com>, CSS 3 W3C Group <www-style@w3.org>

Brad Kemper wrote:
> On Jun 17, 2008, at 1:03 PM, Frode Børli wrote:
>>> 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.
>> How would we add both inner and outer shadow at the same time?
> One div inside another, I suppose, But since inner shadow creates the 
> illusion of a hole cut in something, and outer shadow creates the 
> illusion of that shape floating above something instead, I really don't 
> think there is going to be that much demand for both inner and outer 
> shadows on the same rectangle. Its much simpler to have a single key 
> word on a single compound property.

This is what we spoke about [1] a month ago Brad. Why can't we have an 
inner and outer shadow at the same time?

Not being one for my graphic arts expertise, here's a few demos of what 
I see.


This is what I mean by having a shadow and highlight and the reverse 
with a glow.


Thus why I suggested text-shadow and text-highlight. Text highlight is 
layered above the text and the shadow is layered under. Both can be 
declared on the same line of text.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008May/0192.html

Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2008 11:49:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:37 UTC