Re: [community-group] Shadow type feedback (#100)

### Shadow array
> My only question there is should the structure of a shadow $value always be an array (which could just contain a single element) or should it be object (as currently specced) or an array? I don't have strong feelings either way.

I personally like the idea of always using an array as it makes the easier to understand and is always the same. However we do have cases like with `fontFamily` were `$values` can be `string` or `array`.

The benefit of keeping both possibilities would be that it may be easier for people who are new to the standard or don't know json so well.

While may here think design tokens will be always machine made, I disagree and see at least a few years of people (possible designers who don't really know code) tweaking tokens in json files.

### Inset
> As for the inset stuff, I agree there should be a way to express that. However, I wonder if there's value in also retaining something like the current syntax for the purpose of defining "generic" shadows that are intended to be used both as inset and outset shadows on containers or as text shadows.

Not sure about this. The one thing that bothers me is that the inset value changes the meaning of the x and why values. `offsetX: 1px` for `inset: false` means the shadow is at the bottom whereas on the `inset: true` it is on the top. (Yes, I know this makes sense as the imaginary light source stays the same but designers often look at this as a shadow on the top or bottom). This is why it may make sense to keep `inset` with the rest of the values. But I have no strong opinion here.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by lukasoppermann
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/design-tokens/community-group/issues/100#issuecomment-1333430548 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Thursday, 1 December 2022 08:54:25 UTC