W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2008

RE: [css3-text] Multiple Text Shadow Stacking Order

From: Paul Nelson (ATC) <paulnel@winse.microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 23:50:05 -0800
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D92F7E6A79E88B4684BFC067AE15477D159E08A717@NA-EXMSG-S702.segroup.winse.corp.microsoft.com>

Shadows are painted from back to front.


> Boxes with the same stack level in a stacking context are stacked back-to-front according to document tree order.

> Each stacking context consists of the following stacking levels (from back to front):

> the background and borders of the element forming the stacking context.
> the stacking contexts of descendants with negative stack levels.
> a stacking level containing in-flow non-inline-level descendants.
> a stacking level for floats and their contents.
> a stacking level for in-flow inline-level descendants.
> a stacking level for positioned descendants with 'z-index: auto', and any descendant stacking contexts with 'z-index: 0'.
> the stacking contexts of descendants with positive stack levels.

Even Eppendix E (http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/zindex.html) seems to explain back to front order from what I can see.

The definitions seem to be consistent. Can you provide an example for your point?


-----Original Message-----
From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of fantasai
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 3:37 PM
To: www-style@w3.org
Subject: [css3-text] Multiple Text Shadow Stacking Order

The text-shadow definition in CSS2 specifies that the first shadow
effect is on the bottom and the last one on top. This is inconsistent
with how multiple backgrounds work. Should we change it?

Received on Friday, 8 February 2008 07:50:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:33 UTC