- From: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 21:11:10 +0100
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: (wrong string) åkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org
Also sprach Tab Atkins Jr.:
> > That's fine, you are free to do so.
>
> Well, do you expect the majority of your border-images to be
> completely rectangular?
I expect both. The example I've pointed to in the past is rectangular:
http://people.opera.com/howcome/2009/tests/borders/frame.png
> > > box-shadow will be more than useless in these
> > > cases - it will produce a completely unintuitive shadow that doesn't
> > > correspond to any visible edge.
> >
> > Perhaps. The solution is simple: don't set a box-shadow.
>
> That's perfectly fine in the case that you know all browsers are
> supporting border-image, and you know that your visitors are
> downloading images. If they suppress border-image, or are using a UA
> which doesn't support it at all (but does support box-shadow), the
> simple solution doesn't work.
We should aim to have implementations support complete modules --
that's part of the motivation for splitting into modules in the first
place.
> PS: Man, border-image seems to create as many problems as it solves.
> If only it weren't so useful...
:-)
-h&kon
Håkon Wium Lie CTO °þe®ª
howcome@opera.com http://people.opera.com/howcome
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 20:12:06 UTC