- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 16:29:33 -0500
- 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: http://www.terrainformatica.com/htmlayout/images/tooltip-balloon.jpg 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. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 3 August 2009 21:30:28 UTC