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: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:44:06 -0600
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <4DFD9D42-FDB2-4BAF-A20F-3DE72CB9C054@apple.com>
To: robert@ocallahan.org
On Feb 12, 2009, at 5:38 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Tab Atkins Jr.  
> <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org 
> > wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com 
> >
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> >
> > Maybe. It's totally unclear to me what "spread" means in this  
> situation, so
> > it's not clear what authors would want or expect.
>
> Well, I don't have a browser on hand right now that implements the
> spread value on box-shadow, so I can't be certain, but what I
> described above *appears* to be what's intended by the spec text.
>
> Firefox 3.1 nightly builds implement 'spread'.
>
> What you describe is equivalent to what 'spread' means today for  
> rectangular boxes, assuming you use Manhattan distances to compute  
> "within X".
>
> But if you have, say, a border of repeating diamond-shaped tiles, I  
> don't really know what authors would want if they use 'spread' with  
> that. But your definition is probably as good as any.

Applying a scale when drawing perhaps?

dave
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2009 23:44:49 GMT

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