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

Re: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2010-05-05

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 17:46:50 -0700
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <5C3791C9-8668-49D9-AE2F-AFDCD84F1FEC@gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>

On May 16, 2010, at 12:45 AM, fantasai wrote:

>  ChrisL: Scale and spread are different in general, but for rounded
>          boxes they're much more similar.
>  sylvaing: I trust Brad to know if spread radius is more important
>            to designers than a scale.
>  <bradk> Im not on the call any more, and can't get in again
>  * tabatkins I'm minuting as we talk, Brad.  ^_^
>  <bradk> Scale would just be a completely different thing.

I'm not sure we were all talking about the same thing here. Scaling the whole shadow is a very different (and to me, vastly less important) from spread (which is really an outward or inward offset). But I am not at all apposed to offsetting the straight parts and then scaling the corners, as this is very, very close to achieving the same effect (maybe even a little better, as I confirmed in follow-up tests).

Also, as for GPU acceleration, I am not that familiar, but I think this could be done as a raster effect which might allow GPU acceleration. We had talked about it a little when we were considering drop shadows for border-images, way back when. In Photoshop there is a filter called "minimize" that does something similar (it reduces the white area by expanding the black area, sort of). But the corners are not kept sharp. Would something like that be better (if we can live without the sharp corners requirement)?




Received on Monday, 17 May 2010 00:47:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:27 GMT