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: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 15:23:09 -0800
Message-Id: <30F13745-6095-4D2D-9FF5-572286AF22B6@gmail.com>
To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>

On Feb 5, 2009, at 2:29 PM, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com> wrote:

> Also sprach Brad Kemper:
>>> http://people.opera.com/howcome/2009/tests/borders/frame.png
>> That is a good example of an image you would edit before using.  
>> Because of
>> the color shifts along the sides from top to bottom, it would not  
>> work well
>> for tiling.
> Agreed. Stretching works fine within limits.

Certain types of images stretch better than others. I wouldn't want to  
stretch that one more than a few percent in either direction. Which  
would make it useless for anything containing varying amounts or sizes  
of text. Are you agreeing just that tiling would not be suitable with  
that picture? Or that it is very unlikely that you could just grab a  
picture frame image from somewhere and expect it to work well with  
image-border without any editing?

>> Plus, its huge (wastes bandwidth).
> Yes, it should be scaled. I can do that from the command line.

If you are a site author/designer that puts together his page designs  
from the command line, then you are exceptional I should think. The  
rest of is use PhotoShop or equivalent for getting their images of the  
design into Web readiness.

>> And if you go to all that work, you might as well add whatever  
>> shadows you
>> want too.
> Then you're freezing the box-shadow. I want the shadow to remain
> dynamic. It could e.g. change when hovering over the element.

You can get close enough without destroying the ability to use shadows  
as fallback, which I'd say is was more useful. Clearly you disagree,  
but these issues were not discussed AFAICT from the minutes, and did  
not contribute to the decision.

Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 23:23:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:24 UTC