W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2009

Minutes, 22 July 2009 CSS WG telcon

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:16:27 +0200
Message-ID: <618187518.20090722191627@w3.org>
To: www-style@w3.org
Hello www-style,

Minutes of the 22 July 2009 CSS WG telcon are at

and below as text for bots. 

There were no new resolutions, and one new action item.

ACTION: ChrisL to revise the border-image-and-box-shadow
   proposal to make a border-shadow proposal, them make public

                             CSS WG telcon

22 Jul 2009


      [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-css-wg/2009JulSep/0025.html

   See also: [3]IRC log

      [3] http://www.w3.org/2009/07/22-CSS-irc


          plinss, Brad_Kemper, David_Baron, glazou, ChrisL, Bert,
          sylvaing, arronei, fantasai, SteveZ




     * [4]Topics
         1. [5]CSS3 Background
         2. [6]flexbox and css3 images
         3. [7]Publication status of flexbox and css3-images
         4. [8]Percentage corners
     * [9]Summary of Action Items

   <glazou> ah

   <scribe> Scribe: ChrisL

   <dbaron> hmmm, my internet connection seems to have soured so as to
   make voip unusable...

   <glazou> dbaron: : same thing here, lot of noise

CSS3 Background

   CL: I sent in a proposal

     [10] http://www.w3.org/2009/07/B-and-B/border-image-shadow-combine.html

   <dbaron> I think we should post this proposal to www-style and try
   to get some feedback.

   BB: Prefer the 4.2 opaque box solution

   BK: prefer the one with shaddows all round

   CL: Thats actually two shadows, one inset

   DG: Prefer the one with the alpha chanel.
   ... often asked hhow to do that

   BK: Anyone that can crwate an image can also create a drop shadow

   DG: I have a counter example, want the user agent to be able to use
   the alpha channel

   <fantasai> DG: counter-example, making an app and want to add
   shadows through the app

   <fantasai> DB: Leaning towards not including the shadow, because it
   may often not be quite right

   <dbaron> DB: I think I might lean towards agreeing with BK, because
   this feels like the type of feature where we spend a lot of work
   implementing something that doesn't quite do what authors want, so
   nobody uses it.

   DB: Prefer to disable box-shadow

   <dbaron> CL: shadow incoporated into border-image doesn't work with
   the slicing

   CL: I have an example not linked in which puts a drop shadow on the
   source : the slicing is then wrong

   DB: yes, can't get that with the author making their own shadow in
   the source image

   DG: Shadows not aligned with circles, so slicing will mess up the
   shadow. Woudl need two images, one for the shadow and one for the
   image itself

   SZ: If images distort the shadow distorts differently

   DG: Web designers want to apply the effects dynamically

   CL: Could animate the drop shadow. Lighting effect on mouse position
   for example

   <sgalineau> example of ChrisL's dynamic shadow update based on mouse
   position with text-shadow: � ACID3

   <sgalineau> � Evaluate score for current plan

   <sgalineau> � >ACID3::003-025

   <sgalineau> DOMCanvas

   <sgalineau> doh


     [11] http://www.zachstronaut.com/lab/text-shadow-box/text-shadow-box.html

   BK: Agree its powerful, but should be a separate property that works
   on all images

   sz: how about renaming the property border-shadow instead of

   EE: everyone is using this property already, so its hard to change
   even with vendor prefixes

   DB: people will have to change anyway

   <fantasai> CL: Creating a version of the image with drop-shadow and
   then slicing and tiling it was really gross

   EE: In applications the spacing is critical

   <fantasai> ScribeNick: fantasai

   <ChrisL> DB: I think the reason the change would cause more breakage
   for iPhone (etc.) applications than Web pages is that Web pages
   aren't using it because not all browsers support it yet

   Chris: I had a section in the document that shows the result with a
   solid box
   ... to show that it's the same as with drop-shadow on a solid border

   Brad: Already starting to think about what it currently does with
   ... It doesn't follow the alpha-image of the actual border
   ... not using alpha channels

   CL: alpha-image of a solid rectangle is a solid rectangle

   Brad: But it's not if it's dots or dashes
   ... For this image seems like you can't slice it very well
   ... But for a lot of things I would use, e.g. for fancy corners on a
   straight-edged box
   ... would be able to use the images for the shadow

   Chris: I think when you actually try it, it won't work

   Peter: I'm sure there are some images where it would look right, but
   a lot where it wouldn't

   <sgalineau> can someone post the lamp demo page ?


     [12] http://www.bradclicks.com/cssplay/border-image/Thinking_Outside_The_Box.html

   Brad: Either way you are going to be restricted
   ... E.g. in Chris's example you can't create complex effects
   ... Restriction on my way is that you can't animate it and certain
   types of images where you have a big corner and things narrowing as
   they come towards the corner.. that would be something you can't do
   with my way

   Steve: There's nothing that prevents someone from /not/ adding the
   drop-shadow and putting it in the image

   Brad: But then you can't use drop-shadow as a fallback

   Fantasai: I think that's less important than being able to get these
   cases right

   <ChrisL> EE: Maybe we could use media queries in the future to
   detect images being turned off. But the fallback issue sis not
   enough to block using drop shadows on border images

   EE: We have a large chunk of use cases that can only be achieved by
   including the shadow in the image, and also a large chunk of use
   cases that can only be achieved by dynamically applying the border

   Peter: I think box-shadow and border-image are separate things and I
   don't think they should be combined like this.
   ... I think we should have a border-shadow property instead.
   ... Put a switch on it to get different behaviors.

   <ChrisL> so then the dashed borders would also behave like this?

   Steve: I like the solution that has border-shadow apply to both
   regular borders and image borders
   ... and box-shadow does what it does now

   <dbaron> Brad: ... where box-shadow is not drawn when there's a

   Chris: So are we going to move forward with border-shadow now, or
   reserve that for a future version?
   ... Are we adding this now?
   ... Just copy the box-shadow property definition and tweak it
   ... spread for arbitrary images is not defined

   Brad: We also talked about having switches in the property, might
   delay CR

   <ChrisL> i'm hapy to add a border-shadow to the spec, and add an
   example that has a dashed border

   dbaron: We also need to get this discussion on www-style

   fantasai: I want to make sure roc and hyatt agree with whatever we
   decide to do here

   <ChrisL> sz: update Chris's proposal document first to be a

   Brad: They can also read the minutes of this meeting, too, right?

   fantasai: Why not put the switch on box-shadow?
   ... You wouldn't use both properties at the same time anyway

   <ChrisL> ACTION: chris to revise the border-image-and-box-shadow
   proposal to make a border-shadow proposal, them make public
   [recorded in

   <trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - chris

   <trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or
   username (eg. ChrisWilson, clilley)

   Steve: In your examples, the shadow didn't look like it was on the
   box, it looked like it was on the border

   <ChrisL> ACTION: lilley to revise the border-image-and-box-shadow
   proposal to make a border-shadow proposal, them make public
   [recorded in

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-165 - Revise the
   border-image-and-box-shadow proposal to make a border-shadow
   proposal, them make public [on Chris Lilley - due 2009-07-29].

   Steve: I would prefer Chris write it up as a separate property and
   then suggest that it could be merged

   <ChrisL> sz: note at the end that this could be done with a switch
   on box-shadow

   <scribe> ACTION: Chris write up border-shadow proposal [recorded in

   <trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Chris

   <trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or
   username (eg. ChrisWilson, clilley)

   <scribe> ACTION: clilley write up border-shadow proposal [recorded
   in [16]http://www.w3.org/2009/07/22-CSS-minutes.html#action04]

   <trackbot> Created ACTION-166 - Write up border-shadow proposal [on
   Chris Lilley - due 2009-07-29].

   <ChrisL> I can revise the proposal and make it public for Friday

flexbox and css3 images

Publication status of flexbox and css3-images

   Bert: Will be officially published tomorrow

   <ChrisL> bb: they wil be published tomorrow

   <ChrisL> ... fixed a few markup errors, so please do a cvs update
   before further edits

   Bert: longer answer is, I had to fix markup errors in the drafts, so
   next time you update do cvs update first

   <scribe> ScribeNick: ChrisL

Percentage corners

   EE: Add this or defer? Already added in Mozilla
   ... and they will be removing the vendor prefix soon
   ... prefer to defer it as we decided earlier, but wondering if it's
   possible for Mozilla to remove at this point or if we have to define
   this so it doesn't conflict later on

   DB: Need to remember to remove it when we drop the border prefix

   PL: This has been implemented since the *90s*

   DB: Don't reacll seeing actual uses of it

   BK: Does the prefix form continue to be supported?

   DB: probably not

   PL: Whats the problem with having percentage values in there?

   EE: There are two differing interpretations of what a percentage

   BK: Suggested on www-style how to handle them
   ... one radius is based on width, two is based on the relevant side

   DB: Agree with Hakon and say they are always based on width or
   ... if you want a particular shape you will use particular units

   BK: How do you get ovals?

   DB: One alsways based on width the other based on height

   SZ: So its based on the border thickness?

   DB: No the size of the box

   <dbaron> so you'd get a circle with border-radius: 50%

   <dbaron> or an ellipse

   <dbaron> depending on the shape of the box

   <fantasai> Brad: If you want quarter-circle corners that are not
   ellipses, then you don't use percentages

   <fantasai> Brad: 10% height is different from 10% width

   BK: So if you want quarter circle corners, you just can't use

   <fantasai> Peter: The only thing you couldn't get that way is a
   percentage-based curve that is always circular

   PL: If there is only one dimension specified, make it the width.
   Then you can get both behaviours
   ... always get a circular border

   <fantasai> Peter: I kinda like Brad's idea that the percentage is
   always based on the width if you only specify one percentage

   EE: Normally if there are two values and you can drop one, its
   duplicated, but does not give different behaviour
   ... so its not like other shorthands

   SZ: Its duplicating the computed value, not the specified one

   <fantasai> Peter: Another way to get that would be to have a width
   unit. 0.5width

   PL: Or make new units like a width unit. 0.5W
   ... width 50% is the same as 0.5W
   ... could be introduced down the road

   EE: opera also has percentages implemented

   BB: Any other case where you want percentages, apart from elliptical

   <anne2> (if this is about borders, we might have removed those due
   to compat issues)

   <anne2> (supporting percentages there, that is)

   <fantasai> anne2, yes, this is about borders

   <anne2> (sites were using it expecting it not to work)

   <sgalineau> i believe i've seen border-radius used to make a circle

   PL: Mac buttons with rounded ends irrespective of button length

   <fantasai> anne2, huh?

   <anne2> fantasai, what is unclear?

   <fantasai> Bert gives an example of resizing his window so the box
   resizes, and that causes the padding to not be enough and text
   overlaps the border

   <fantasai> ...

   SZ: If I make the corner a constant size and make the box bigger the
   corner becomes more square. Don't want that

   <fantasai> anne2, why they would want to use it expecting it not to

   EE: Anne says percent border radius might have been removed from

   SZ: not been in a released build anyway
   ... Like Brad and Peter's suggestion with the single value

   <anne2> fantasai, dunno, the Web is a fun place

   <anne2> fantasai, you should know, you've done QA :)

   PL: Not hearing consensus, out of time

   <sgalineau> fantasai, i don't expect the browser i use to work :)

   <anne2> fantasai, I guess they were just trying something, didn't
   work in IE, but didn't remove it


Summary of Action Items

   [NEW] ACTION: chris to revise the border-image-and-box-shadow
   proposal to make a border-shadow proposal, them make public
   [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: Chris write up border-shadow proposal [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: clilley write up border-shadow proposal [recorded in
   [NEW] ACTION: lilley to revise the border-image-and-box-shadow
   proposal to make a border-shadow proposal, them make public
   [recorded in

   [End of minutes]

 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Technical Director, Interaction Domain
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
Received on Wednesday, 22 July 2009 17:16:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 February 2015 12:34:27 UTC