- From: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 12:32:37 +1000
- 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 :-). http://css-class.com/test/css/shadows/box-shadow-or-relief.htm 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 Alan
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2008 02:33:38 UTC