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

Re: box-shadow and features (was [css3-background] Issues and Proposed Resolutions)

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 09:42:55 -0700
Message-ID: <482B168F.3030800@inkedblade.net>
To: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
CC: www-style@w3.org

Alan Gresley wrote:
> 
>> 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).

If an inner glow/shadow were added, then it would be painted inside the
padding box and not outside it. This is analogous to the way the outer
shadow is painted outside the border box and not inside it. :)

> 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?

It seems more common to mask the shadow than to not mask it. Also, if
a true shadow is wanted then it would make more sense to apply the
effect to the whole element the same way 'opacity' works. That would
be a different property.

> How can spread work if backgrounds are always opaque?

See http://bradclicks.com/cssplay/Shadows.html

~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2008 16:43:55 GMT

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