- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 10:30:33 -0700
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 1:04 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > On 06/06/2010 10:22 AM, Brad Kemper wrote: >> >> On Jun 3, 2010, at 5:05 PM, Brad Kemper wrote: >>> >>> 3a. In my tests, it actually looked better than 2a's truer offset, and if >>> it is better for performance, so much the better. >> >> Oops, I left out number 4 (and 4a), which was "prefer #2 (or 2a), but >> allow #3 >> (or 3a)." So, I'd insert those options as follows (in descending order of >> preference). >> >> 3a >> 4a >> 2a >> 3 >> 4 >> ... > > I think, actually, that it is important for us to keep to the stricter > definition of spread. I'm not sure what examples you looked at, but the > difference in effect is more exaggerated when the curve is more > extremely elliptical. E.g. if you take a 10:1 ratio of radii and have > 1 be the border thickness, #3's distortion will be more obvious. > > But super-elliptical corners are relatively rare. A more important > consideration is that we're likely to add other shapes such as angled > corners in the future, and I think approach #4 is both easier to > generalize and gives better results. > > _____ > / \ > | | > | | > \______/ > > If you take approach #3 with angled corners, I think you'll see that > the shadow spread at the angles is noticeably thinner than at the > straight sides. Would you mind mocking up #3 and #4 visually? I can't quite understand the difference between the two at this point. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 7 June 2010 17:37:07 UTC