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

Re: [css4-background] More relaxed box-shadow grammar

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 17:16:51 -0700
Message-Id: <DD732F16-AB90-496D-9FBC-075CFDBD984C@gmail.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
To: Lev Solntsev <greli@mail.ru>

On Oct 16, 2012, at 12:24 PM, "Lev Solntsev" <greli@mail.ru> wrote:

>> [skipped]
>> We *could* allow you to omit the second length, but it doesn't seem to
>> be worth very much.  How often is a shadow just projected up/down?
>> Potentially more useful is to assume that, if the second length is
>> omitted, it's *the same* as the first length.  That's a much more
>> common case in my experience.
> Also it will be consistent with other properties which propagate existing
> length to omitted values, like margin and padding.

I think it's more important to be consistent with other properties that take one horizontal value and one vertical value (like the old version of background-position). 
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2012 00:17:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:04 UTC