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

Re: [css3-background] box-shadow spread radius and rounded corners

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 07:41:12 -0700
Cc: Alex Meiburg <timeroot.alex@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <6B89AF38-1745-4037-A7BA-48104641F41F@gmail.com>
To: Brendan Kenny <bckenny@gmail.com>

On May 16, 2010, at 9:34 PM, Brendan Kenny wrote:

> Your argument above, about the need for the purely artistic effect of
> spread, is a great argument for a distinct spread property. In that
> case it is an artistic effect, and doesn't really have much to do with
> shadows. There's no reason to limit the expressiveness of a drop
> shadow by using a totally artificial algorithm to change size, nor is
> there a reason to take what's really a spread with a required offset
> and call it "box-shadow." Both are great effects, let's have both.
> 
> box-spread: inset? && [<spread-radius> <blur-radius>? && <color>? ]

But I want to spread the shadow without spreading the box. If the element's box itself is being spread too, it ruins the whole point of spreading the shadow. 

Also, this is the time for resolving issues with the draft, not for adding all-new features, such as shadow scaling (which, BTW, in my view would have very limited appeal). I would not describe shadow spread as "totally artificial" any more than any other part of an effect, such as having "dotted" as part of border-style. It is a common part of specifying shadow-like effects, which is considerably more important than whether or not it describes something accurately in nature.

I also do not agree that spread is warranted for element boxes in general. There does not seem to be much of a use-case there. It wouldn't really do anything that couldn't be done by increasing border width or padding width.

Received on Monday, 17 May 2010 15:02:08 GMT

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