W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2012

RE: [css3-text] Should text-shadow have 'spread'?

From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:02:52 +0000
To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3C4041FF83E1E04A986B6DC50F017829034198F5@TK5EX14MBXC295.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

[Simon Fraser:]
> I don't think 'spread' should apply to text-shadow, yet CSS3 Text suggests
> that text-shadow follows box-shadow <http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-
> text/#text-shadow>.
> For rectangles and rounded-corner rectangles, 'spread' is easy to
> implement by insetting or outsetting the rectangle bounds. For arbitrary
> shapes, spread is vastly more difficult to implement, requiring either
> some complex path math, or pixel-based computations that are expensive to
> do at drawing time. There are also complexities related to whether spread
> makes sharp corners rounded etc.
Current IE10 builds support it so we'd certainly like to propose that it
does. It's author-friendly from a consistency standpoint in that it makes 
the shadow syntax consistent with box-shadow. 
Received on Monday, 23 January 2012 22:04:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:54 UTC