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: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 19:39:52 +1300
Message-ID: <11e306600902062239t71cec262nd095e967985bb2c1@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote:

>
>
> You're just hung up on the name.
>>
>
> Yeah, I am. Names are important.
>

Actually I think this is really the heart of our differences.

I think you see box-shadow as just another border effect, a peer of
border-style, border-color, etc. Then it seems natural that if border-image
overrides border-style and border-color, it should also override box-shadow.

I don't see box-shadow as a border effect in that way, so it seems unnatural
for border-image to override it.

The reason I don't see it as a border effect is because it doesn't share the
nomenclature of the other border effects. If it was named border-shadow,
then I would think your position reasonable, although still possibly not
desirable. At least authors would be far less surprised when border-image
overrides it.

So I think the first thing you should argue for here is to have box-shadow
renamed to border-shadow.

Rob
-- 
"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
53:5-6]
Received on Saturday, 7 February 2009 06:40:28 GMT

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