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 16:47:09 -0600
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0902121447o1cc6a13ajff84449edc4f20cc@mail.gmail.com>
To: robert@ocallahan.org
Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 4:44 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
>> wrote:
>> > So one question just came to mind: how do we deal with box-shadow
>> > "spread"
>> > if we're using the border-images to generate a non-rectangular mask? I
>> > don't
>> > see any reasonable option.
>>
>> I can't think of anything that wouldn't be computationally ridiculous.
>>  Would it be horrible to just ignore it?
>
>
> You mean ignore "spread" if border-images are present? Slightly unclean, but
> perhaps the best option.

Yeah.

However, could we achieve what we want by simply having each pixel
inherit the highest alpha value of any pixel within X of it, with X
depending on the spread?  Negative spreads would inherit the lowest
alpha instead.

Obviously more expensive than ignoring it, but not as bad as, say,
edge-detecting and trying to intelligently grow it.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2009 22:47:49 GMT

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