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: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 20:58:07 -0800
Cc: robert@ocallahan.org, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FF8C15F3-FC70-465F-B87E-A285AA491387@gmail.com>
To: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>


On Feb 12, 2009, at 3:44 PM, David Hyatt wrote:

>> 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?
>

Please no. Where would you center the scale? You end up with some  
parts of the shadow further away than others. Regular box-shadows are  
not scaled, and that is not at all what I would expect or want most of  
the time. I'm not just saying this to be obstinate. There is a huge  
difference between scaling and spreading. If you want to add scaling  
to the things you can do to shadows, that's one thing (also include  
where the scaling should be centered). But it isn't anything like  
spreading.

Really, I'm not just trying to argue with everything. I could live  
with UA-computed border shadows, if done right (even though it is less  
control than putting them into the image). Substituting scaling for  
spreading would be exactly the wrong way to go.
Received on Friday, 13 February 2009 04:58:47 GMT

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