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

Re: [css3-background] box-shadow syntax

From: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 19:49:54 -0500
To: Brad Kemper <brkemper@comcast.net>
Cc: Eli Morris-Heft <dai@doublefishstudios.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <4C8CE08F-ACD8-48B8-B316-496CEF179BA6@apple.com>
On May 12, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Brad Kemper wrote:

> Here is my mockup:
>
> http://bradclicks.com/cssplay/Shadows.html
>
>
>

One thing that bugs me about this rendering of spread is the implicit  
use of round joins on the stroke instead of miter joins when cast is  
set to outside.

My understanding of spread is that basically you take a shape (e.g., a  
glyph for text-shadow, a box for box-shadow) and you combine the  
filled glyph shape with a stroke of the shape that extends outside the  
fill by an amount equal to the spread.  The composed shape (fill 
+stroke) can then have its shadow rendered offset by the spread to  
achieve the renderings you are showing.

However when cast is outside you seem to be making assumptions about  
the line joins used by the stroke.  In particular instead of a miter  
join, you are using round joins.  My question is, is this  
intentional?  It seems especially odd to use round joins for box- 
shadow to me, when the box itself could actually have specified a  
"rounding join" of its own via a border-radius (at which point I would  
expect the spread to simply follow the curve of the border-radius).

dave
(hyatt@apple.com)
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2008 00:50:40 GMT

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