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

Shadow blur (Was: Re: A List Apart: Articles: Prefix or Posthack)

From: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 21:02:21 -0700
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <69931774-C95A-4208-8E05-DA34E57D8E75@me.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
On Jul 7, 2010, at 5:58 PM, Brad Kemper wrote:

> Brad Kemper
> 
> On Jul 7, 2010, at 11:08 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> A new article on ALA about vendor prefixes in CSS, by Eric Meyer:
>>> http://www.alistapart.com/articles/prefix-or-posthack/
>> 
>> Heh, I was going to post this to the list as well.  ^_^
>> 
>> Eric's justification for vendor prefixes matches my own thoughts
>> exactly.  I like the vendor prefixes for exactly the reasons he gives,
>> and similarly think that a unified prefix is a horrible idea.
> 
> Agreed. I thought it was interesting that he mentioned the raging debate about shadow blurs, as that one seems most in danger of becoming unprefixed while still largely inconsistent (esp. if MS follows the current spec and no one else does).

So let's wind up the shadow blur discussion. Brad, can you summarize the state of the discussion in a new thread?

Thanks

Simon
Received on Thursday, 8 July 2010 04:03:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:29 GMT