- From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 18:11:57 +1300
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style@w3.org
- Message-ID: <11e306600902052111icb80a57xfb1e58bc1569a79d@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 5:31 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > > 1. Having box-shadow and border-image visible at the same time is NOT > useful. Those who are creating the images for border-image can very easily > create them with shadows already included in the images[3]. Incorrect. CSS box-shadows will typically look a lot better than image shadows if the user zooms or prints. Also, CSS box-shadows do not stop events from reaching the elements underneath them, which is very useful when they're translucent; you can't emulate that with border images. Adding a shadow to a border image is a lot of extra work that you can avoid using box-shadow. It will also make the image bigger and slower to load. Having border-image disable box-shadow would add a strange wart to the platform that would confuse authors and prevent useful applications of these features. The only benefit would be better fallback when border images are not loaded or in browsers that support box-shadow but not border-image; but the former is extremely unusual in practice and the latter is not worth worrying about. In either case, falling back to no shadow at all is just fine. Rob -- "He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah 53:5-6]
Received on Friday, 6 February 2009 05:12:41 UTC