On Apr 27, 2010, at 6:54 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote: >> From: fantasai [mailto:fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net] > > >> Hm, I didn't realize this was ambiguous. >> >> The simplest definition would be: >> * When border-radius is zero, the shadow's radius is also zero. >> * When border-radius is nonzero, the shadow's radii are increased >> (or decreased) >> by the spread value. For circular curves, this effectively moves >> all points on >> the curve outward by the same amount the sides move outward. > > That's what I initially thought too. But take a box with: > > width:300px; > width:200px; > border-radius:10px; > > And you now define a shadow with no blur radius and a spread radius of 50px. > The shadow will be 400px wide x 300px high but should the border-radius in > each corner become 60px ? That is absolutely what I want and expect. Here, I created a visual aid: http://www.bradclicks.com/cssplay/spread.png > If so, that shadow does not look like a spread > version of the element anymore. It does to me. It is a rather extreme example. It is probably more common for the spread to be less than the blur, or at least not a whole lot bigger, so that makes this one pretty unusual in my experience. This is a huge spread in the example, but at least it follows the path in a natural and even way. > The corners are significantly distorted vs. > the 'original' being shadowed. > > If, instead, you figure that your width is being increased by 1/3 and make > your shadow's border-radius ~13px, you will get something closer to a spread > version of the shadowed box. I think that's what we're after. Well, that's > what I'm after at any rate. > > My assumption that this is what authors would prefer is, however, not backed > up by evidence yet. That is not at all what I would prefer. That distorts the path of the thickening stroke to no longer be a stroke of even thickness.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:13:45 UTC