W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2011

Re: [css3-text] script-specific functionality

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 12:58:05 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTik1aQ6aGyVX57jGNbk-E+Fux6D=tg@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:05 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> On 04/08/2011 10:47 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 10:38 AM, fantasai<fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I suggest we remove the 'text-outline' property -- 'text-shadow'
>>>>> should cover it.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have answer to this question, sorry again -- fantasai?
>>>
>>> I have no problem with that. It was even marked as a suggestion in the
>>> draft already. ;)
>>
>> I'd disagree with this - text-shadow isn't an adequate replacement for
>> a real outline/stroke.  Shadows do a half-job, but you need 4 or 8
>> shadows in your code to do it, and they lose detail in a way that's
>> pretty bad for some fonts.
>>
>> Brad had a really good diagram showing the distinction between shadow
>> and outline, and just how much better a real outline looks in some
>> situations.
>
> The 'text-outline' property wasn't about stroking the letters. It did
> exactly the same thing as spread on text shadows. Although it could be
> argued that it should keep corners sharp rather than rounding them, it
> doesn't encroach on the glyph face, only paints around it.
>
> Here's an illustration of the effect:
>  http://www.fireworkszone.com/tuts/626/thicktextoutline_1.gif
> The text outline is the white part.

Oh, okay.  If the effect of text-outline really was equivalent to just
doing a spread on text-shadow, then there's no harm removing it.

~TJ
Received on Friday, 8 April 2011 19:58:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:39 GMT