- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 11:27:09 -0700
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- CC: robert@ocallahan.org, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 06/21/2010 10:33 PM, Brad Kemper wrote: > > On Jun 21, 2010, at 10:23 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > >> I'm also in favour of that. >> >> Apart from the other points made, I have another ... when there is no >> shadow offset, the blurred area inside the shadow edge is not visible. >> I expect authors will be surprised to find that the width of the >> visible blur is only half the value they specified. > > Seriously? You want to optimize for those uthors that use shadows, but > are surprised by what they see when they fill in those first 2 values > of box-shadow with something other than zero? Maybe they would also be > surprised by the fact that it is called 'box-shadow' and not 'box-glow'. Whatever it's called, it will be used for both shadow and glow effects, and other effects we have not yet thought of. I see box-shadow less and less as a shadow effect and more like a swiss-army-knife of graphical border-edge tweaking. ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 18:27:47 UTC