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, 12 Feb 2009 12:20:35 -0600
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0902121020h2ff0c176t2dea538069b379a1@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, robert@ocallahan.org, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 11:54 AM, David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com> wrote:
> Rather than suppressing the shadow, what about using the border-image as a
> mask when deciding how to draw the shadow?  In theory it should be possible
> to intelligently draw a more complex shadow for a border-image object.

I think that would answer mine and Brad's concerns perfectly.  Our
issue is solely that box-shadow currently does *not* do that, so if we
want a proper shadow we have to build it into the border-image.  But
then we can't offer shadows to someone who doesn't see the
border-image for whatever reasons (browser doesn't implement it, they
refuse images, etc.), because if we were to do so we'd get a double
shadow (and the second shadow wouldn't even pretend to have a correct
edge).

So yeah, if you can intelligently draw the shadow based on
transparency in the border-image, I'd be completely happy.  It would
reduce the amount of work I had to do, *and* maintain backwards compat
for users who don't see the border-image.

(I mentioned this solution in an aside, where I assumed the plain
box-shadow would *not* do this, but a future extension to it that took
an image as a mask would.  I wanted box-shadow to be suppressed in the
plain version, but shown in the masked version.  Having this ability
immediately, though, would be optimal.)

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2009 18:21:10 GMT

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