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

Re: Border-radius proposal

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 08:23:59 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTini-7ReVC7-xorWa29Sihit-F0WlUSlxEze1OkI@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Beverloo <peter@lvp-media.com>
Cc: Sean Edison-Albright <sean.albright+css@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Peter Beverloo <peter@lvp-media.com> wrote:
> While I agree that a "border-radius-style" property would be a more
> appropriate solution than using negative values, there isn't a
> "box-shadow-style" property for inset shadows.

Indeed, but there doesn't need to be.  There's not a lot of use for
multiple different "styles" of shadows.  Inset is pretty much the only
one I can think of.

That said, if box-shadow became a shorthand property, inset/normal
would certainly be done by a property of its own.


> I think it would be clearer to, if this proposal might make it to the
> spec, be consistent and either add a "scooped" keyword to the
> "border-radius" property value, or add a property named
> "box-shadow-style". Since the latter has been implemented by various
> vendors already,

Who implements box-shadow-style?  Chrome and FF don't, in my quick testing.


> my preference would be the following (where "normal"
> would be the default value):
>
> foo {
>    border-radius: 2em 1em 4em / 0.5em 3em scooped;
> }
>
> Con is that the border-radius shorthand gets fairly complex using this
> approach..

I'd rather avoid making shorthands really complex.  ^_^

~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 30 June 2010 15:24:55 GMT

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