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

RE: [css3-background] Default shadow color

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 18:05:45 +0000
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
CC: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <045A765940533D4CA4933A4A7E32597E2AB88A1A@TK5EX14MBXC113.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
[Brad Kemper"]
> Changing the default to currentColor also is something no current author
> or existing stylesheet will benefit from, except in the case of the author
> style sheet hack for thin letter strokes.

If they do not specify the color component today then there can't be any
harm documenting what they're getting in every browser that supports the
feature today. In fact, it allows them to depend on it. If they always 
specify the color they don't care.
 
> Perhaps making the color required would be more palatable, since authors
> always include it anyway? Then you'd be documenting the behavior of all
> authors instead of all implementors.

That works too; although I'd prefer if we could keep the usage model consistent
with box-shadow but maybe that's too hard (see spread radius discussion)

 
> > Any authoring environment that assists with writing CSS - from Adobe's
> > product to Daniel's BlueGriffon - is perfectly able to provide
> > interesting smart shadow defaults based on all the available
> > information to them combined with any heuristics they choose. Nothing
> > prevents them from doing that that and I don't see how purposefully
> avoiding implementation reality adds any value to that process.
> >
> > In the meantime, I'd like to test that the color component of shadows is
> optional.
> > That's a bit harder if transparent is a conformant default value. When
> > everyone already uses a perfectly testable behavior it also seems silly.
> 
> Everyone? Are you sure? We've tested Prince, et al?

I have; it doesn't support text-shadow (at least not through a CSS property).

But of course I haven't tested all CSS implementations in existence, including 
Those embedded in HP printers, Canon cameras etc. But I'm not sure why the existence
of some implementation being different for their specific scenario would be a 
sufficient reason to keep something undefined despite agreement by the majority 
of the rest.
Received on Friday, 4 March 2011 18:06:23 GMT

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