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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 10:30:33 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTim0qzxsRNS2cFBoFN48qB65b1J-FrgkysxGHhjU@mail.gmail.com>
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 GMT

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