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

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

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 08:40:39 -0800
To: Behrang Saeedzadeh <behrangsa@gmail.com>
Cc: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>, W3C CSS Mailing List <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20130213164039.GA862@crum.dbaron.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.

On Thursday 2013-02-14 01:26 +1100, Behrang Saeedzadeh wrote:
> How many web pages do I/we need to find to convince the decision makers
> that this sort of effect is indeed popular?

There aren't clear criteria; it depends on how prominent the Web
pages are (which is perhaps a sign of how far you had to look to
find them), how well-designed they are, and probably other factors.

-David

-- 
𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                           http://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2013 16:41:04 GMT

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