- From: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 May 2008 15:23:43 +1000
- 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 UTC