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

Re: [css3-background] box-shadow syntax

From: Eli Morris-Heft <dai@doublefishstudios.com>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 11:23:44 -0500
Message-ID: <4821D790.8000707@doublefishstudios.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: www-style@w3.org

Note: Everything here applies to 'box-shadow' as well as 'text-shadow', because, 
well, I think they should pretty much be treated the same.

fantasai wrote:
> That would make
> 
>   text-shadow: blue;
> 
> valid. Which I don't think is quite the intent. :)

Good point, unless the default offset isn't '0px 0px'. Then that makes a lot of 
sense. ^.^ But allowing this is still sensible even if the default offset is '0 
0', under the same logic that allowing 'border: 3px' is (even though 
'border-style' is 'none'.) I actually had a use case for your example outside of 
hiding behind possible default offsets, but I realized it was bunk - unless the 
opacity property doesn't affect the shadow (which it probably should anyway, but 
the spec is silent).

Brad Kemper wrote:
> You can have a blur radius without an offset in order to create a glow effect,
> right? Or am I taking your comments out of context, since you were talking
> about all three values being zero? 

As I read the spec, yes. Too bad the spec can't put a big stamp on this that 
says "Use Wisely".

Brad Kemper also wrote:
> Then a negative blur radius could mean that is is an inner shadow instead
> of an outer shadow.

I like this idea, but UAs have an option to not render the inner glow if there 
isn't enough space inside? Think about small text, or tiny boxes...

Eli Morris-Heft
dai@doublefishstudios.com
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2008 16:24:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:06 GMT