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

Re: Possible text-shadow enhancements

From: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 17:36:11 -0800
Cc: Jordan OSETE <jordan.osete@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <59868800-6D10-4E8D-AA9E-B9B8BADFBC7E@me.com>
To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
On Mar 1, 2011, at 5:27 PM, Brian Manthos wrote:

>> From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On
>> Behalf Of Simon Fraser
>> The problem with spread radius, which we already discussed in the context
>> of box-shadow, is whether it makes sharp corners rounded. This is especially
>> problematic with border-radius, because you have a potential discontinuity
>> between zero border radius causing spread to retain sharp corners, and a any
>> small, but non-zero radius resulting in in a shadow with obviously rounded
>> corners.
>> 
>> I think people will be more sensitive to this in the context of text, and that
>> text stroke gives a more predictable visual result.
> 
> 
> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-text/
> http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-text/#text-shadow
> 
> These two drafts agree: "<shadow> is the same as defined for the ‘box-shadow’ property except that the ‘inset’ keyword is not allowed."
> 
> Simon, are you suggesting that the current text-shadow spec should be reconsidered *or* that text-outline should stay alive because of the distinction? (Or both?)

I think spread is problematic (if convenient) in the context of box-shadow, and, although I see the benefit of keeping text-shadow and box-shadow similar, I question the utility of spread for text-shadow. I also have no idea how to implement spread on non-rounded-rect shapes, and whether it's possible in a way that has the same behavior as box-shadow's spread in terms of corner rounding.

So my preference would be to drop spread everywhere, but it's probably too late for that for box-shadow.

I don't like text-outline, because it's doing blurring but doesn't have 'shadow' in the name.

Simon
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 01:36:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:38 GMT