- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 11:55:11 -0700
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Jun 22, 2010, at 11:27 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > 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. The point is, it it not reasonable to ignore the biggest existing usage of people that do use offsets and do perhaps want to actually see some of their shadow color at the opacity they specified But we should pretend instead that the blur value does not have a measurable visible effect and is mainly just for growing the shadow? That is not reasonable. The main purpose of spread is to grow the shadow and the main purpose of blur is to blur the shadow. Spread frees designers from having to hack blur for it's secondary effect, so they can grow the shadow without having to make it blurrier. >
Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 18:56:00 UTC