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

Re: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2009-02-04: box-shadow and border-image

From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 21:11:10 +0100
Message-ID: <18827.18398.871382.190248@opera.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: (wrong string) åkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org

Also sprach Tab Atkins Jr.:

 > > That's fine, you are free to do so.
 > 
 > Well, do you expect the majority of your border-images to be
 > completely rectangular?

I expect both. The example I've pointed to in the past is rectangular:

  http://people.opera.com/howcome/2009/tests/borders/frame.png

 > >  > box-shadow will be more than useless in these
 > >  > cases - it will produce a completely unintuitive shadow that doesn't
 > >  > correspond to any visible edge.
 > >
 > > Perhaps. The solution is simple: don't set a box-shadow.
 > 
 > That's perfectly fine in the case that you know all browsers are
 > supporting border-image, and you know that your visitors are
 > downloading images.  If they suppress border-image, or are using a UA
 > which doesn't support it at all (but does support box-shadow), the
 > simple solution doesn't work.

We should aim to have implementations support complete modules --
that's part of the motivation for splitting into modules in the first
place.

 > PS: Man, border-image seems to create as many problems as it solves.
 > If only it weren't so useful...

:-)

-h&kon
              Håkon Wium Lie                          CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com                  http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 20:12:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:16 GMT