W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2013

Re: box-shadow-[top, right, left, bottom]

From: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 08:01:51 +0100
Message-ID: <CAERejNa9oqVy44UV1LW+RDO-WiQnuZiUtG6p1gDcES9vnfLt-Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: W3C CSS Mailing List <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:54 PM, "Gérard Talbot" <www-style@gtalbot.org> wrote:
> Le Ven 8 février 2013 10:56, Sebastian Zartner a écrit :
> > That's not exactly the same. When you add blur radii to the shadows, they
> > also spread to the other three sides.
> >
> > Sebastian
> Blur radius and spread distance can be set for each <shadow>.
> Eg
> http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/CSS3Backgrounds/box-shadow-AG.html

I know. And as you can see in your example the black shadow is also
visible at the other sides, not just the left one.

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Lea Verou <lea@w3.org> wrote:
> This can be adjusted with a negative spread radius.
> I really don't see the point of adding these. If we want to make those use
> cases easier, just allow for different horizontal and vertical spread
> radius, which is useful for a number of use cases. Perhaps with a slash, eg
> box-shadow: 0 2px 4px -2px/0 black;

Also adjusting the shadow with a negative spread radius to compensate
that wouldn't give the same result.

Independent from each other you (fantasai) suggested different values
for horizontal and vertical spread radii and Dirk for different
horizontal and vertical blur radii[1].
So I really wonder why adjusting all four sides - at least blur and
spread radii - is met with that much refusal. It would allow to create
more natural drop shadows and give the author more creative freedom
for designing shadows.


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2012Dec/0035.html
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2013 07:02:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:08 UTC