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

Re: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2009-02-04: box-shadow and border-image

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 17:28:00 -0600
Message-ID: <dd0fbad0902121528y364b4d99gcc3c6a137c20fbd7@mail.gmail.com>
To: robert@ocallahan.org
Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> However, could we achieve what we want by simply having each pixel
>> inherit the highest alpha value of any pixel within X of it, with X
>> depending on the spread?  Negative spreads would inherit the lowest
>> alpha instead.
> Maybe. It's totally unclear to me what "spread" means in this situation, so
> it's not clear what authors would want or expect.

Well, I don't have a browser on hand right now that implements the
spread value on box-shadow, so I can't be certain, but what I
described above *appears* to be what's intended by the spec text.
Wherever the shadow would be drawn, increase its boundary by X pixels
first.  Of course, if anyone is currently implementing it they'll be
doing so in a much more efficient way (you can just draw a bigger box,
no need for per-pixel operations).
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2009 23:28:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:49:25 UTC