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

Re: [css3-background] box-shadow and border-break

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 00:03:49 -0800
Message-Id: <0627D980-A19D-43A9-ACBF-07AD929F7E95@gmail.com>
To: "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>

On Feb 1, 2009, at 11:44 PM, "Robert O'Callahan"  
<robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:

> Note that even if we accept we should clip box-shadows at a border- 
> box edge where a break occurred, there's still an unresolved  
> question about the rendering of my test-case: should the box-shadow  
> for the first box of the span actually be rendered on the second  
> line? If we try to faithfully stick to the 'slice' concept of border- 
> break:none, I think it would; we'd be slicing at the right border- 
> edge of the first box, and everything to the right of that edge  
> (including the first box's shadow) should be rendered on the second  
> line. This would make the implementation a good bit more complicated  
> than simple clipping, though.
> Rob

If we accept that, then I think there's no question it would. It's a  
bit of an edge case (so to speak), but with less offset so that object  
and shadow intersected, it would seem fairly obvious what to do, and  
we would not do something different when offset increases.

> -- 
> "He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our  
> iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and  
> by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray,  
> each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him  
> the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah 53:5-6]
Received on Monday, 2 February 2009 08:04:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:23 UTC