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

RE: Implementation of Inset Box Shadow on image elements

From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 19:09:18 +0000
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, divya manian <divya.manian@gmail.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FA122FEC823D524CB516E4E0374D9DCF0F2909A8@TK5EX14MBXC140.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Resending to correct CC line.

- Brian


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Manthos
> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 12:07 PM
> To: 'fantasai'; divya manian
> Cc: " \" <www-style"@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Implementation of Inset Box Shadow on image elements
> 
> That's a pretty fundamental change.
> 
> Unless I'm misremembering, this would be the first instance of "render on
> top of content" for the any of the terms in the module {border, background,
> border-image, box-shadow}.
> 
> Do you really want to open up that can of worms *now*?
> 
> Off the top...
> - all existing implementations are rendered non-interoperable with spec-
> based implementations
> - are the border geometries still relevant when we're talking about nested
> child content?
> - what happens with absolutely positioned children?
> - should it react to text flow (/orientation) of the content?
> - how does z-index come into play?
> - do we need to create a new stacking context?
> - what do we do about blurry text in the box-shadow region?
> 
> It screams "Bad Idea Jeans" to me.
> 
> 
> If you really want this capability, you need a new property -- "content-
> overshadow" -- likely in a different "adornments on top of the content of an
> element" module if you want it done right.
> 
> - Brian
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 11:46 AM
> > To: divya manian
> > Cc: Brian Manthos; " \" <www-style"@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Implementation of Inset Box Shadow on image elements
> >
> > 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?
> >
> > ~fantasai

Received on Tuesday, 27 July 2010 19:09:52 GMT

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