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

On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 2:18 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>wrote:

> Robert O'Callahan wrote:
>
>>
>> Because "box-shadow" is not a border property. Dunno about border-radius;
>> the only reason to keep applying it would be to get proper hit-testing, and
>> there might be a better way to do that. That's a separate issue.
>>
>
> We decided not to suppress border-radius because it controls
> also the clipping shape for backgrounds. We could see using
> border-image for fancy corners, and using border-radius to
> keep the background from leaking out from underneath.
>
> ~fantasai
>

Do you mean that it would clip the background, but not the image-border
itself? If so, I have no problem with that decision.

Otherwise, that rationale only makes sense your fancy corners are round ( a
subset of all the borders that can be created with image-border, and I would
argue that it is a small subset given all the universe of possibilities).
For scalloped corners, clipped corners, filigree corners, twisted rope
corners, skull & cross-bone corners, bunny rabbit corners, etc. It does more
damage than good if it clips the path. The damage is that I cannot use
shadow and rounded edges to create a very nice alternate presentation for
those without image-border doing its thing, which Tab and I feel is very
important, and so would a lot of other designers and authors, even if Håkon
and Robert O' do not.

In all those cases, I would use background-clip if I did not want the fancy
borders to overlay the background.