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

Re: [css3-background] Issues and Proposed Resolutions

From: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 19:21:28 +1000
Message-ID: <48314698.3040901@css-class.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org, dbaron@dbaron.org

L. David Baron wrote:
> On Tuesday 2008-05-13 23:28 -0700, fantasai wrote:
[...]
>> 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
> 
> Is the idea that a spread is like a blur, but not blurry?
> 
> Note that the text in the spec differs from the proposal in the
> issue in that the text in the spec implies that spread causes
> curvature at the edges, whereas the text in the issue implies that
> the corners remain square.
> 
> If the former was intended, you need to define what negative spreads
> do.
> 
[...]
> 
> -David


This spread value began with Brad. I think about here.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008May/0088.html


It works like background-size in a fashion extending the shadow outside 
the border-box. A demo of the concept.

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


I would believe that negative values are allowable for box-shadow but 
not text-shadow.


Alan
Received on Monday, 19 May 2008 09:22:23 GMT

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