- From: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 17:06:52 +1100
- To: "Eric A. Meyer" <eric@meyerweb.com>
- CC: www-style@w3.org
On 27/01/2011 3:05 PM, Eric A. Meyer wrote: > I don't doubt it. I do have to wonder why an outset shadow is clipped by > the border box, though. Because it is a bit weird to shadow a box, then > decide to make the background transparent and not see the rest of the > shadow. Is that an ease-of-implementation thing? No, some members of the CSS WG in there wisdom decided that a box-shadow seen through a transparent background was wrong. I argued against it back in 2008 [1]. I suggested it again a few weeks ago [2]. It would work like this (the default would be mask). box-shadow: 10px 10px 10px 0 <color> cast; > Or is it that because > backgrounds are transparent by default, it's thought the shadow > shouldn't be visible behind the content because that could create > legibility problems? Not if it's done carefully. Also a box-shadow does not have to be dark. If you offset the box-shadow enough, you can see how the full box-shadow is rendered. This means that a full box-shadow is painted first and then implementations have to apply a mask on the shadow where it intersects the border-box of the background. 1. <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008May/0165.html> 2. <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2011Jan/0042.html> -- Alan http://css-class.com/ Armies Cannot Stop An Idea Whose Time Has Come. - Victor Hugo
Received on Thursday, 27 January 2011 06:07:30 UTC