W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2009

Re: Shadows vs. layout

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2009 15:14:37 -0700
Message-Id: <C8D83CA4-B4C9-46B9-BD09-E54461A89F62@gmail.com>
To: David Perrell <davidp@hpaa.com>
Cc: W3C style mailing list <www-style@w3.org>


On Aug 4, 2009, at 3:04 PM, "David Perrell" <davidp@hpaa.com> wrote:

> David Hyatt wrote:
> | Unlike shadows they can be quite large.  I'm on the fence about what
> | type of overflow a reflection would be.... anyone have any opinions?
>
> Simulated phenomena, same as shadows and glow.
>
> I'd put motion blur in the same category. I wouldn't want a blur  
> effect
> increasing scroll dimensions, at least not by default.
>
> David Perrell
>
>

Me too. I would suggest we use "ink overflow" for anything described  
as having no affect on layout (defining what that means more  
precisely), provided it is not a property that can move content of the  
element it is applied to around (thus excluding positioning from this  
definition). 
   
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 2009 22:15:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:20 GMT