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

Re: [css3-background] box-shadow syntax

From: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 15:23:43 +1000
Message-ID: <4825315F.1030709@css-class.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brkemper@comcast.net>
CC: Eli Morris-Heft <dai@doublefishstudios.com>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>

Brad Kemper wrote:
> 
> 
> On May 9, 2008, at 4:41 PM, Alan Gresley wrote:
> 
>> box-shadow: 4px -3px 1em() blue;
>>
>>
>> Does that look confusing to you?
>>
> 
> I don't think we need to be adding functional notation to distance 
> measurements. I would require a whole new way yo tokenize the 
> measurement, would not be backwards compatible with the way shadows work 
> today (in WebKit, for instance), and offers no advantage over just 
> inserting a space before the keyword instead.


Well that the whole point, being backwards compilable. Lets say maybe in 
2010 someone codes.

box-shadow: 4px blue;


What does that mean? Is that shorthand for this?

box-shadow: 4px 4px 4px blue;
/* horizontal % vertical offset with blur radius */


Anything else added must be different to be compatible with the current 
implementation of Safari. That why the blur type or shadow type would 
appear as such.

box-shadow: 4px 4px 4px(?) blue;


If depth of field (one point perspective) was added, where does it go?


In the future I could have.

box-shadow: 4px 4px 4px blue; /* Safari */
box-shadow: 4px 4px 4px(?) blue; /* future implementations */


The later being used by future implementations since it appears earlier 
in the cascade thus overruling the former declaration. We had a similar 
discussion many months ago concerning the background property, remember?


Maybe we should into the tokenism issues. A rushed mistake now could 
effect how things could be added in the future.


Alan
Received on Saturday, 10 May 2008 05:24:37 GMT

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