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.
> 
> http://css-class.com/test/images/text-shadow5.png
> 
> 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.

http://css-class.com/test/images/text-shadow5.png


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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convex_and_Concave


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


Alan

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