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

Re: [css3-background] box-shadow syntax

From: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 12:32:37 +1000
Message-ID: <482BA0C5.9060007@css-class.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>, www-style@w3.org

fantasai wrote:
> David Hyatt wrote:
>> 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.
> The same assumption applies both when the cast is inside and outside. If
> you pay attention to the A when spread is 5px and blur is zero you can see
> this. The spread extends to every point that is within 5px of a point on
> the original shadow.
> ~fantasai

Why can't this be done as a gradient [1] on a border since the border 
part of the box shows the shadow or glow at it sharpest [2] or greatest 
saturation. Another test case and again my mantra (only seen in safari :-).


Depending on how you look at it, both examples show different things.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gradient

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_%28spatial%29#Vector_components

Received on Thursday, 15 May 2008 02:33:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:36 UTC