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