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

RE: [css3-background]Positioning of box-shadow blurs?

From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 17:01:38 +0000
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
CC: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Alex Meiburg <timeroot.alex@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FA122FEC823D524CB516E4E0374D9DCF014EA90D@TK5EX14MBXC136.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
> # The third length is a blur radius. Negative values are not allowed. The
> blurring region should be an area the width of this value, running along and
> centered on the edge of the shadow shape (a shape otherwise mimicking
> the shape of the border box, including any border-radius).  The shadow
> should should transition from the shadow color on the inner edge of this
> region, to transparent at the outer edge of this region. If the blur radius is 0,
> the shadow is sharp, otherwise the larger the value, the more the shadow is
> blurred.  The exact algorithm is not specified.

I concur; much better.  This goes a long way in giving the spec some teeth, and opens the door for testability where right now there's only a slight glow coming out of that door frame.

Two concerns with that phrasing:
(1) As I mentioned previously, I hate the use of the word "sharp" because of the collision with the "sharp rounded corners" discussion.  Is there really no other word that can be used here?
(2) For "a shape otherwise mimicking the shape of the border box", addition of the words "prior to application of spread radius" would be good here for clarity.
Received on Thursday, 29 April 2010 17:03:04 GMT

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