Re: Box-shadow : Why not follow the standardized OpenXML specification ?

Alan Gresley wrote:

> So how can a shadow be painted above a text glyph or box but be 
> understood as a shadow? Your inner shadow proposal does not function 
> like a shadow since it appearance is more like a relief (in sculpture). 
> What I am suggesting is inner shadow is really a new property, and one 
> that can use the same syntax as text-shadow or box-shadow.  Henrik 
> conceptually sees it as "carved into the plane it's levitating over."
> Here is a demo showing that effect.
> The inner shadow is carved into the text glyph and levitating over it. 
> It also uses both text-shadow and the text-shadow inner thing. The 
> syntax would be.
> text-shadow: 5px 5px 5px 0 black;
> text-highlight: 3px 3px 3px 0 color; /* khaki */

Looking at my text-shadow demo (far to long :-) I have realized that 
there is a greater devision between text-shadow and text-shadow inner.

The is no ambiguity where the light source is coming from with 
text-shadow. It is coming from a point above and to the side from where 
the user is, thus casting a shadow below the glyph.

With text-shadow inner something else is happening.

The text-shadow inner inside the glyph could created by either.

1. A light source from the right which causes a shadow on the left 
'outer' side where the glyph is rising out (convex, curving out or 
bulging outward).

2. A light source from the left which causes a shadow on the left 
'inner' side where the glyph is carved inwards (concave, curving in or 
hollowed inward).

Thus text-shadow inner behaves just like an artistic illusion.

Since both can be perceived by the user, the mind is always perceiving 
the glyph as either convex or concave.


Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2008 01:58:23 UTC