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: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 14:59:47 -0600
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0902051259sb3c9e5foce568259dc365c21@mail.gmail.com>
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com> wrote:
> 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

I certainly expect both to occur, I simply question which will be more
prevalent.

>  > >  > 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.

True, but that still leaves the use-case of users who refuse images,
but for which you still want a shadow on the box.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 21:00:23 GMT

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