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: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 18:11:57 +1300
Message-ID: <11e306600902052111icb80a57xfb1e58bc1569a79d@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 5:31 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:

> 1. Having box-shadow and border-image visible at the same time is NOT
> useful. Those who are creating the images for border-image can very easily
> create them with shadows already included in the images[3].

Incorrect. CSS box-shadows will typically look a lot better than image
shadows if the user zooms or prints. Also, CSS box-shadows do not stop
events from reaching the elements underneath them, which is very useful when
they're translucent; you can't emulate that with border images. Adding a
shadow to a border image is a lot of extra work that you can avoid using
box-shadow. It will also make the image bigger and slower to load.

Having border-image disable box-shadow would add a strange wart to the
platform that would confuse authors and prevent useful applications of these
features. The only benefit would be better fallback when border images are
not loaded or in browsers that support box-shadow but not border-image; but
the former is extremely unusual in practice and the latter is not worth
worrying about. In either case, falling back to no shadow at all is just

"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
Received on Friday, 6 February 2009 05:12:41 UTC

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