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: Mon, 12 May 2008 19:37:54 -0500
Message-ID: <4828E2E2.60901@doublefishstudios.com>
To: Henrik Hansen <henrikb4@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>

Henrik Hansen wrote:
> Great! It also seems to be a hacky way of making outlines ;-)
Which reminds me. It isn't clear whether border and padding (and margin?) get 
included in the calculation for how big the shadow is. Are UAs supposed to use 
'width' and 'height'? (I expect so, but it needs to be asked.)

> Yet we still need to decide how to handle my ideas about 'shadow-mask' 
> and 'shadow-transmittance'.
> Something like
>  shadow-mask: none|mask;
>  shadow-transmittance: none|color|opacity|all;
> 
> 'shadow-mask' should be obvious. If the shadow is under the object it's 
> not drawn there.
> 
> The 'color' value makes the shadow transmit all colors, so instead of a 
> black shadow it's a colorful shadow. Opacity is ignored!
> 'opacity' makes the UA ignore colors. Opacity makes the shadow more bright.
Maybe it's my addled brain at this particular moment, but I can't quite make 
heads or tails of these descriptions. Can I ask for a rephrase, please? And what 
do these mean for inside shadows?

> On another topic: What could we use multiple shadows for? It can be 
> hacked to make a glow, but wouldn't it be more "correct" to make a 
> 'glow' property?
...multiple light sources? Plus, the shadow is already sort of functioning as a 
glow without multiple shadows, with the addition of the spread parameter. I 
don't mind that particular bit of hackery.

Eli Morris-Heft
dai@doublefishstudios.com
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2008 00:38:35 GMT

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