- From: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 19:21:28 +1000
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org, dbaron@dbaron.org
L. David Baron wrote: > On Tuesday 2008-05-13 23:28 -0700, fantasai wrote: [...] >> Add "spread" value to 'box-shadow'. >> http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Tracker/issues/41 ISSUE-41 >> >> Resolve: Add "spread" as optional fourth length value after "blur". >> >> http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/css/20080512#l-503 > > Is the idea that a spread is like a blur, but not blurry? > > Note that the text in the spec differs from the proposal in the > issue in that the text in the spec implies that spread causes > curvature at the edges, whereas the text in the issue implies that > the corners remain square. > > If the former was intended, you need to define what negative spreads > do. > [...] > > -David This spread value began with Brad. I think about here. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008May/0088.html It works like background-size in a fashion extending the shadow outside the border-box. A demo of the concept. http://bradclicks.com/cssplay/Shadows.html I would believe that negative values are allowable for box-shadow but not text-shadow. Alan
Received on Monday, 19 May 2008 09:22:23 UTC