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: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 14:38:38 -0800
Message-Id: <C11B7306-6801-4556-AB33-8CD85004D8AA@gmail.com>
Cc: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Estelle Weyl <estelle@weyl.org>
To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>


On Mar 4, 2011, at 2:11 PM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote:

> On Mar 4, 2011, at 1:07 PM, Brian Manthos wrote:
> 
>>> How do you interpolate from inset to non-inset (and the reverse)?
>>> 
>>> from {
>>>    box-shadow: 0 0 0 blue;
>>> }
>>> to {
>>>    box-shadow: 0 0 0 red inset;
>>> }
>> 
>> Adjusting the example:
>> from {
>>    box-shadow: 0 0 127px rgb(0,0,254);
>> }
>> to {
>>    box-shadow: 0 0 127px rgb(254,0,0) inset;
>> }
> 
> I was just thinking about this recently when fixing a WebKit bug.
> 
> I think animating from inset to non-inset shadows automatically is too magical, especially when both have different spreads. I think we should state that you cannot transition between shadows of different types.
> 
> Of course, animating from no shadow to either type of shadow should work.

How about if, in thus example, the outer shadow acted as if it was animating to zero while the inner shadow was simultaneously from zero? Or perhaps not simultaneously, but sequentially? That doesn't seem to magic to me (although I often enjoy magic, so who knows), while providing a nice effect. Seems better than nothing, anyway. 
Received on Friday, 4 March 2011 22:39:21 GMT

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