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 21:21:37 -0800
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4698EB19-2061-4F00-BF83-5C47BCD6EED4@gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>


On Feb 12, 2009, at 4:40 PM, fantasai wrote:

> Robert O'Callahan wrote:
>> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> > ...
>> BTW they have "inset" too. What "inset" should do with border- 
>> images is another kettle of fish...
>
> Invert the alpha values of the mask.

My view, as stated before, is that "inset" shadows should have nothing  
to do with image-border. They are a decorative effect on the padding  
box.

Imagine a box with a thick border and a thick inset shadow. It looks a  
little like a frame casting a shadow through a cut out space onto a  
surface below. Now replace the border with an image of a straight- 
edged picture frame that followed the same edges. Wouldn't you still  
expect the cut-out effect of the padding box to be the same? If you  
you inset the image of the border, you end up with a completely  
different area being cut out (unlike with outer shadows).

And I think you must have been kidding about inverting the alpha  
values, but I didn't see a winking emoticon. Inverting the mask would  
result in solid shadow in all the areas that were transparent, and  
transparent areas in all the areas that were solid, and perfectly  
straight outer edges, regardless of blur. A real inset shadow draws  
shadows in completely different places.
Received on Friday, 13 February 2009 05:22:21 GMT

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