Re: Drop-Shadow proposal

On Sep 11, 2009, at 2:55 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>  
wrote:

> Brad Kemper wrote:
>> On Sep 11, 2009, at 1:00 PM, David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com> wrote:
>>>> This author finds the inability to 'opt out' of the inheritance  
>>>> of opacity (to have a child that is more opaque than it's parent)  
>>>> to be a huge limitation. Since I was drafting my ideal, I did not  
>>>> want to repeat that limitation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not being able to opt in is just as problematic.  I think  
>>> consistency with opacity is more important.  If we ever want to  
>>> "break something out of" a pushed layer, I think we could come up  
>>> with a consistent way that could apply to shadows and opacity  
>>> anyway.
>> Another related thing was that I wanted to be able to use drop- 
>> shadow, box-shadow, or text-shadow on a child element, with a non- 
>> default value, to be able to override the shadow that the parent  
>> was giving it. That's in there somewhere too (I don't have the  
>> document in front of me at the moment). Would that be equally  
>> problematic in your view, or would that be an acceptable way to  
>> cause it to break out of the inherited shadow?
>> Perhaps any value other than 'inherit' on any of those three  
>> properties would cause this break out behavior.
>
> 'drop-shadow' should definitely not inherit. If it does, it means  
> there's
> no way to tell what element the shadow is actually specified on. (Or,
> alternatively, that every element it inherits to is shadowed, which is
> not useful.)
>
> ~fantasai

You're right. I just abused the word 'inherit' to describe why  
children share the same opacity as their parents. It's not inheritance  
that causes that, and it wouldn't for what D. Hyatt was saying about  
drop shadow either. So my last sentence quoted above doesn't make any  
sense. Hmm.

Received on Friday, 11 September 2009 22:59:22 UTC