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

Re: [css3-background] box-shadow spread Multiple Choice Question

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 15:49:05 -0700
Message-Id: <1F6AFF24-C4AD-4F7A-B32E-03E01EF1ECD2@gmail.com>
To: Brendan Kenny <bckenny@gmail.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Jun 4, 2010, at 10:41 AM, Brendan Kenny <bckenny@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is there a reason why (1) needs to be specified as a length? It seems
> more natural to specify a scale as a number multiplier or percentage.
> This would also preserve shape, regardless of width/height ratio.

That would make it a very different feature. We are not looking to add  
features at this stage, just clarify what the rendering can/should be  
for the features the WG agreed to already.

And as I've said in the past, spread is not something created in order  
to simulate some phenomenon observed in nature. It is intended to give  
greater control of the placement and extent of the shadow at a level  
consistent with what is commonly available when creating shadows in  
familiar ways using tools such Photoshop.

Preserving aspect ratio when specifying a percentage shadow-scaling  
factor would make the feature far less useful to those accustomed to  
being able to set actual spread for their shadows. 
Received on Friday, 4 June 2010 22:49:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:28 GMT