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

Re: [css3-background] Default shadow color

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 17:42:31 -0800
Message-Id: <20066F4E-3F62-4CF5-AFB1-AD3137F4BA28@gmail.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
On Mar 3, 2011, at 4:29 PM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote:

>> Ok, if we have interop on currentColor, we can update the spec that way.
>> I'm kindof surprised, because if you do that for text-shadows, it's really
>> almost never the right color.
>> ~fantasai
> You've said this twice now, but I'm curious to here why or at least in what way it's "wrong".

It's hard to imagine many wanting their text-shadow to be the color of their text, as that would usually make the text unreadable. If text-shadow had spread it might be useful for creating a pseudo-bold, I suppose, but that would be too hacky for us to encourage in the absence of existing usage. 

> Also, it's ... odd ... that the default value seems difficult to get "right" but apparently that hasn't been enough to warrant getting it specced explicitly (until now).
> Put another way ... if it's important to get right, why would you leave it as wide open as UA-defined?

Maybe the WG at the time assumed the UA would get it right, or use an OS-dependent default. If we define it, I'd rather see something more reasonable, such as rgba(0,0,0,0.5), based on the theory that real shadows darken what's behind them, but not completely so, usually (on earth, or other planets or spaces with atmosphere). 
Received on Friday, 4 March 2011 01:43:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:44 UTC