- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 22:37:18 +0000
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, Prabs Chawla <pchawla@microsoft.com>
> From: Brad Kemper [mailto:brad.kemper@gmail.com] > > This is incorrect. > > No it isn't. The straight parts do not get any longer or shorter no > matter how much spread you apply. Yes it is ! :) More seriously, do you mean absolutely or relatively ? A simple testcase such as the one I mentioned earlier does show that the proportion of the outer shadow edge that is rounded does increase vs. that which is straight. That can't be avoided. The more spread, the rounder the outer edge. It might be too small to matter in the intended use-case but it does happen. > But so what? I can create all kinds of crap by using extreme, huge > values in almost any property that includes numbers. You keep asserting these values are extreme but for some of them, that's Intentional i.e. for illustration purposes. If I want to create a non-blurred shadow around my rounded-corner box, however, it doesn't take much for the shapes of the outer edges of the shadow and box to mismatch. That said mismatch is the result of an even spread is not so obvious to the non-expert eye. As long as more people understand this is by design than the converse - and thus that this is the wrong feature for the job - I'm happy. I don't really have a way of verifying it though so I'll have to trust you :) >That's not the purpose of it. <snip> It is an artistic effect > that is important for the artist to get just the shadow he wants. Right. I don't have that expertise and I don't expect the spec to impart that knowledge to me either. Thus the spec should be precise so that the rest of us idiots don't get 'hung up' on the wrong plain English sentence.
Received on Wednesday, 28 April 2010 22:37:57 UTC