- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 21:21:37 -0800
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Feb 12, 2009, at 4:40 PM, fantasai wrote: > Robert O'Callahan wrote: >> Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> > ... >> BTW they have "inset" too. What "inset" should do with border- >> images is another kettle of fish... > > Invert the alpha values of the mask. My view, as stated before, is that "inset" shadows should have nothing to do with image-border. They are a decorative effect on the padding box. Imagine a box with a thick border and a thick inset shadow. It looks a little like a frame casting a shadow through a cut out space onto a surface below. Now replace the border with an image of a straight- edged picture frame that followed the same edges. Wouldn't you still expect the cut-out effect of the padding box to be the same? If you you inset the image of the border, you end up with a completely different area being cut out (unlike with outer shadows). And I think you must have been kidding about inverting the alpha values, but I didn't see a winking emoticon. Inverting the mask would result in solid shadow in all the areas that were transparent, and transparent areas in all the areas that were solid, and perfectly straight outer edges, regardless of blur. A real inset shadow draws shadows in completely different places.
Received on Friday, 13 February 2009 05:22:21 UTC