- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 14 May 2008 19:43:54 -0700
- To: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
- CC: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>, www-style@w3.org
Alan Gresley wrote: > fantasai wrote: >> >> David Hyatt wrote: >>> On May 12, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Brad Kemper wrote: >>>> Here is my mockup: >>>> >>>> http://bradclicks.com/cssplay/Shadows.html >>> >>> One thing that bugs me about this rendering of spread is the implicit >>> use of round joins on the stroke instead of miter joins when cast is >>> set to outside. >>> ... >>> However when cast is outside you seem to be making assumptions about >>> the line joins used by the stroke. >> >> The same assumption applies both when the cast is inside and outside. If >> you pay attention to the A when spread is 5px and blur is zero you can see >> this. The spread extends to every point that is within 5px of a point on >> the original shadow. > > Why can't this be done as a gradient [1] on a border since the border > part of the box shows the shadow or glow at it sharpest [2] or greatest > saturation. There's no gradient if the blur radius is zero. In Brad's mockups, if the blur radius is more than zero then the gradient is as wide as the blur radius and is centered on the edge of the "spread". This means if the spread is wider than half the radius part of the shadow does not have a gradient. As for why not use a border for "spread" -- working around the limitations of existing CSS is not the point here. As Brad said, you might want to have both a border and a shadow. ~fantasai
Received on Thursday, 15 May 2008 02:44:40 UTC