W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2010

Re: [css3-background] box-shadow spread radius and rounded corners

From: Alex Meiburg <timeroot.alex@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 18:40:27 -0700
Message-ID: <j2l736b692e1004281840p265cc767t9de7c827dd4c307c@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, www-style@w3.org
Not only would people be messing about with it in this way, or it destroying
sharp corners, suppose someone gives a box very elliptical corners - almost
flat - so as to give a somewhat beveled feel. Then, the shadow would add
something like 5px to each radius (which is not extreme) and completely
change the shape. I still feel a keyword would be the easiest way to fix
this. Some authors might *want* the sharp corners to turn rounded when
shadowed.

~6 out of 5 statisticians say that the number of statistics that either make
no sense or use ridiculous timescales at all has dropped over 164% in the
last 5.62474396842 years.

On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>wrote:

> > No, I'd rather do a single correct and consistent thing.
> > My problem right now is that the specced behavior doesn't
> > seem consistent.  border-radius:0 and border-radius:.01px
> > create completely different shadows when you use spread.
> > I think we should commit to doing either pure scaling or
> > pure spreading, not the current "if border-radius is 0,
> > scale, else spread".
>
> Completely agree, Tab.
>
> I was discussing earlier with Sylvain how this current "sharp is special
> case" design is an undesirable discontinuity.
>
> IMO, it's pretty much guaranteed that people can and will find out that
> browser A treats "0.0000001" as zero and browser B treats
> "0.00000000000000000000000001" as zero and blog-cument it as such.
>
> The next step is people authoring content to intentionally get different,
> non-interoperable renderings across the various browsers.
>
> Yuck.
>
> Brad, I'd love to see a definition of spread/choke that (a) satisfies the
> rendering you'd like and (b) doesn't have the discontinuity at zero.
>
>
Received on Thursday, 29 April 2010 01:41:03 GMT

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