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

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

From: Behrang Saeedzadeh <behrangsa@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 01:26:51 +1100
Message-ID: <CAERAJ+-jwfOTKbfmk=65thaV=mEbKCHkbMK=g36yfTLQZvYVBQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>, W3C CSS Mailing List <www-style@w3.org>
> I think if you want to make a case that is at all
credible, you need to point to substantial numbers of existing pages
on the Web that are using images to create the sort of effect that
you'd like to be possible using this new CSS feature

How many web pages do I/we need to find to convince the decision makers
that this sort of effect is indeed popular?

Cheers,
Behrang Saeedzadeh
http://www.behrang.org


On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 6:55 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:

> On Tuesday 2013-02-12 08:01 +0100, Sebastian Zartner wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Given that the sorts of effects you're talking about can be created
> with images, I think if you want to make a case that is at all
> credible, you need to point to substantial numbers of existing pages
> on the Web that are using images to create the sort of effect that
> you'd like to be possible using this new CSS feature, and
> demonstrate that what they're doing can be achieved with the same
> level of quality (e.g., without the corners coming out wrong) with
> the proposed new CSS feature.
>
> -David
>
> --
> 𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
> 𝄢   Mozilla                           http://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 14:27:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:05 GMT