- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 21:28:47 +0000
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- CC: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, "Prabs Chawla" <pchawla@microsoft.com>
> From: Brad Kemper [mailto:brad.kemper@gmail.com] > You're all just getting hung up on that sentence. Well, sorry. I don't get to pick which sentence to get 'hung up' on and which to interpret as I see fit (or rather: been there, done that <cough>). It's there and it's not at all clear that it's only meant to be there for sharp corners. Now, if it said: # When corners are sharp, the shape of the shadow should not # change when a spread radius is applied to it. Then it would be more likely to be interpreted as an exception to the general rule, as opposed to a general requirement for spread radius to preserve shape, for instance/in particular for sharp corners etc etc. I also don't think it is at all unreasonable to want shadows to scale. Not being a designer, I do not know which of scaling or spreading is the most common and desirable use-case so I'll have to trust that authors most definitely want spreading for this feature much more often than they want scaling.
Received on Wednesday, 28 April 2010 21:29:23 UTC