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

Re: Possible text-shadow enhancements

From: Xaxio Brandish <xaxiobrandish@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 18:13:26 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTik6ndpj7yQwjGAqXkqukpxmJ9R1qun6OZ_ASKXH@mail.gmail.com>
To: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Good afternoon,

As long as we're talking about text-shadow enhancements...

In CSS 2, text-shadow is present as part of the recommendation, and supports
the value 'inherit', but it was not inherited by default. [1]

CSS 2.1 doesn't mention text-shadow at all (it was removed to be put in CSS
3?) [2]

In CSS 3, 'inherit' is not present as a value, but it is inherited by
default. [3]

My question is, should the 'inherit' value be present?  I think it could be
useful for forced-perspective styles that change based on interaction or for
effect.  Also, it seems that Opera, Firefox, and Chrome treat it as if it's
a valid value? [4]

--Xaxio

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-CSS2-19980512/text.html#text-shadow-props
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/text.html
[3] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-text/#text-shadow
[4] http://xaxio.com/style/text-shadow-inherit-001.xht

On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mar 4, 2011, at 3:11 PM, Jordan OSETE <jordan.osete@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Also, I ran into a little spec-related issue: as text-shadow allows
> > multiple shadows (unlike box shadow), should we allow a different
> > inset status for each shadow ? And if we do, how do we handle cases
> > where inset and normal shadows are stacked one above another ? Should
> > we "force" all inset shadows to be defined before normal ones, and
> > throw a syntax error else ?
>
> Box-shadow also allows multiple shadows. Insets are all above the
> background and others are all below the background, even if they are
> interleaved in the value list.
>
Received on Saturday, 5 March 2011 02:35:29 GMT

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