- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 14:59:47 -0600
- To: Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>
- Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com> wrote: > 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 I certainly expect both to occur, I simply question which will be more prevalent. > > > > 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. True, but that still leaves the use-case of users who refuse images, but for which you still want a shadow on the box. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 21:00:23 UTC