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 17:27:37 -0700
Message-Id: <1E3D2F3D-AA32-4E7B-BEE6-D6F795B3BD6B@gmail.com>
Cc: Lea Verou <lea@w3.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>

On Oct 16, 2012, at 11:25 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?

Very frequently. Especially just down. See Mac UI, for instance. 

> 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.

That would result in "down and to the right", which probably occurs a little more often than others, in current Western culture anyway, but doesn't seem like it would be dominant enough pattern to be a default shadow direction for single lengths. I might even expect a single length shadow to be projected at zero degrees (to the right, if I wasn't a programmer type or familiar with linear-gradient), if I saw that for the first time while learning CSS. 
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2012 00:28:11 UTC

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