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

[fantasai:]
> 
> On 01/23/2012 02:54 PM, fantasai wrote:
> > On 01/23/2012 02:02 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> >>
> >> [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.
> >
> > I think we should leave it in the L4 draft; we all agree on what the
> > syntax should be, but figuring out exactly how it works seems to
> > require a bit more discussion. Also, the CSS2.0 version did not
> > include a spread radius, and since this spec is the replacement for
> > that, I think we should just include the 2.0 features. That way it's
> > more obvious that there are implementations that don't support the
> fourth value.
> 
> Wow, that wasn't clear at all. s/2.0 features/2.0 features in level 3/
> 
If that was supposed to clarify everything I've missed it :(

Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 02:12:24 UTC