- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 17:13:33 -0700
- To: Alex Meiburg <timeroot.alex@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Alex Meiburg <timeroot.alex@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. I think that the complexity of the full box-shadow is already ridiculous - it's difficult to remember what 4 undistinguished lengths mean! Adding more to the property is likely too much. No, I'd rather do a single correct and consistent thing. My problem right now is that the specced behavior doesn't seem consistent. border-radius:0 and border-radius:.01px create completely different shadows when you use spread. I think we should commit to doing either pure scaling or pure spreading, not the current "if border-radius is 0, scale, else spread". I held a different opinion in earlier discussions, but I've changed my mind on the matter. ^_^ I would like to keep sharp corners sharp, but I value consistency more than I value sharpness-maintaining, so if spreading really is the better behavior, I'd like it to spread at all times. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 29 April 2010 00:14:26 UTC