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

Re: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2009-07-29

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:27:35 -0700
Message-Id: <F610C474-9EEF-44A1-9FC3-3FCDA961F8C3@gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Same here. I think that if we are anticipating a future 'border- 
shadow' and/or fuller 'drop-shadow' property, and want to change the  
current 'box-shadow' as little as possible, then we should not try to  
recreate what those future properties would do inside border-image. We  
should just drop the undesirable rectangular rendering of box-shadow  
on border-images, and let the separate, more complete shadowing  
properties take on the task of rendering shadows for images, dashed  
lines, backgrounds, foreground elements, etc.

I can easily imagine a separate 'drop-shadow' property that has  
similar sytax to box-shadow, and includes another keyword to indicate  
what it applies to (everything, just borders of all styles and kinds,  
everything but contents, just background images, etc.).

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 30, 2009, at 12:20 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>  
wrote:

>>  - Discussed fantasai's box-shadow and border-image message:
>>      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Jul/0120.html
>>    No resolution yet.
>>    Original discussion was here:
>>      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Feb/0361.html
>
> I still don't know if I'm happy with any sort of automatic shadow
> drawing on a border-image.
Received on Thursday, 30 July 2009 23:28:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:19 GMT