W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2010

[css3-background] box-shadow spread radius and rounded corners

From: Alex Meiburg <timeroot.alex@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 16:58:30 -0700
Message-ID: <w2g736b692e1004281658va1b15749p8e6b3a0cc33f3474@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-style@w3.org
Would it be too much trouble to just leave it up to the author? There are
two ways it could be done, quite simply: include one keyword in box-shadow,
"round"|"straight"|"scale". The other would be having two lengths (replacing
the one spread length) - the first indicating the length to increase sides
by, the second length indicating how much to increase corner radius by.
Either would just add one piece to the property, a pretty small hike in
complexity to save confusion and a lot of twiddling.

~6 out of 5 statisticians say that the number of statistics that either make
no sense or use ridiculous timescales at all has dropped over 164% in the
last 5.62474396842 years.

On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>wrote:

> > 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 23:59:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:45 UTC