W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2009

Re: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2009-07-29

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 16:29:33 -0500
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0908031429j308f233eu80451785fbec16cc@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Brad Kemper<brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> Same here. I think that if we are anticipating a future 'border-shadow'
> and/or fuller 'drop-shadow' property, and want to change the current
> 'box-shadow' as little as possible, then we should not try to recreate what
> those future properties would do inside border-image. We should just drop
> the undesirable rectangular rendering of box-shadow on border-images, and
> let the separate, more complete shadowing properties take on the task of
> rendering shadows for images, dashed lines, backgrounds, foreground
> elements, etc.
> I can easily imagine a separate 'drop-shadow' property that has similar
> sytax to box-shadow, and includes another keyword to indicate what it
> applies to (everything, just borders of all styles and kinds, everything but
> contents, just background images, etc.).

Andrew Fedoniouk provided (for a different purpose) an example of a
shadow on what could be a border-image that could probably *not* be
drawn by an automagical algorithm:


The 'bubbles' emerging from the top-left are part of the top-left of
the image, and so would not have a shadow drawn by the proposed
'intelligent' shadow-drawing algorithms.  It would be drawn by the
stupider algorithm that just automatically treats the whole
border-image as an alpha mask, but that's apparently not desirable for
several examples.

Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 21:30:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:38 UTC