- From: Sebastian Zartner via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2022 21:53:52 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> I think we either leave this undefined (and see if any browser does something more complex), or we specify that inset shadows for glyphs and text decorations do not interact. As the results differ a lot and inset shadows for texts will probably mostly be used on large text, it should probably be defined. Though I also assume we are actually discussing some edge cases here with decorations overlapping the text (significantly) because authors will presumably rather use inset text shadows on undecorated text. Or, if it's decorated, they'll rather use underlining which has ink skipping applied by default. So maybe it would be fine to leave this undefined. Though that are just assumptions from my side. @smfr Can you also share some insights on whether it's easier to draw the shadow above the stroke or between stroke and fill? > In addition, the issue was raised that large shadow offsets can cause the inset shadow to "leak" into adjacent glyphs, adjacent inline elements, or adjacent lines. That implies that we may need some spec text that describes whether any of those things should happen. Of course, from an author's point of view, the inset shadows should stay within the glyph even with large offsets. If that's technically feasible is the question here. It would probably mean that the inset shadow needs to be rendered for each glyph individually and then be clipped. Sebastian -- GitHub Notification of comment by SebastianZ Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7251#issuecomment-1159253851 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 17 June 2022 21:53:54 UTC