fantasai wrote: > Bert and I went through all the open CSS3 Backgrounds and Borders issues > on Monday. Here are our conclusions. If there are no objections, we plan > to close the first three categories with the resolutions suggested below > after next week's telecon. (The last category needs further discussion.) > Add "spread" value to 'box-shadow'. > http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Tracker/issues/41 ISSUE-41 > > Resolve: Add "spread" as optional fourth length value after "blur". > > http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/css/20080512#l-503 > Define whether box-shadows are drawn inside the element. > http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Tracker/issues/32 ISSUE-32 > > Resolve: Box-shadows are only drawn outside the element's border-box. > > http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/css/20080512#l-619 > Inner Box Shadow: > http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Tracker/issues/44 ISSUE-44 > > There have been quite a few comments about adding such a feature, > or at least an "inner glow" feature (which this would address). If an inner glow/shadow is added (ISSUE-44) to CSS3, the only place for the inner (whatever?) to be placed is inside the border-box. This box would have to have a transparent background but this could not happen if shadows were not allowed to be drawn inside the border-box (ISSUE-32). Why can't box-shadow be painted the same way as shadows or highlight occur naturally. How are authors suppose to create depth of field if box-shadow doesn't work like true shadows or highlights? How can spread work if backgrounds are always opaque? Alan http://css-class.com/test/Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2008 09:08:18 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:55:06 GMT