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

Re: Implementation of Inset Box Shadow on image elements

From: Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:05:41 -0700
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: divya manian <divya.manian@gmail.com>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, " \" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100727120541.62acc739@moxana.local>
fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:

> On 07/27/2010 11:29 AM, divya manian wrote:
> >
> > The reason I posted here was I think it is practical to have inset
> > box-shadow ON TOP OF the image rather than below the image, despite
> > what the spec says. I think for image elements inset box-shadow is
> > not practical otherwise. inset box-shadow would be of great use if
> > only for this issue.
> > ...
> > My view is, the spec should be altered to allow image  to show below
> > an inset box-shadow when an inset box-shadow is specified on the
> > image element. There is no use-case for the other case where the
> > inset box-shadow is behind the image.
> 
> That's an interesting point. Perhaps it makes more sense for the
> inset shadow to be on top of the content in *all* cases, not just
> for replaced elements?

I proposed something similar (not the same, though) in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Apr/0339.html and
Simon Fraser said it would break existing webpages so I gave up.  It
does seem like drawing inset shadows on top is more likely to be what
authors want.

zw
Received on Tuesday, 27 July 2010 19:06:15 GMT

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