- From: Noam Rosenthal via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 14:52:31 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> This appears equivalent to the current outline rendering. From the user's perspective, the box-shadow should definitely maintain a diamond shape; otherwise, it would look significantly different from a real physical projection. box-shadow spread already looks different from any physical projection of a shadow. It's more like a glorified stroke with offset/blur. > > You can also compare the rendering effect of `drop-shadow()`. That's where you can use actual shadow projection rather than using `box-shadow` spread. > > Additionally, is it possible to algorithmically fill in the missing triangular portion? That would be a miter join instead of a bevel join. But in some cases that triangle could be somewhere between huge and infinite and makes it possible for the shadow to go beyond the projected rectangular shadow, which was not possible so far. -- GitHub Notification of comment by noamr Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/13037#issuecomment-3462016087 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2025 14:52:32 UTC