- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:56:16 -0700
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, Alex Meiburg <timeroot.alex@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > Boy, it's getting a bit long for what I thought was a prety simple concept > how about this: > > # The third length is a blur radius. Negative values are not allowed. The > blurring region should be an area the width of this value, running along and > centered on the edge of the shadow shape (a shape that otherwise mimics > the shape of the border box, including any border-radius, absent the > application of spread radius). The shadow should transition from > the shadow color on the inner edge of this region, to transparent at the > outer edge of this region. If the blur radius is 0, the shadow has a sharp > edge, otherwise the larger the value, the more the edge of the shadow is > blurred. The exact algorithm is not specified. > > #The fourth length is a spread radius. Positive values cause the shadow > to expand in all directions by the specified radius. Negative values cause > the shadow to contract. If 'border-radius' is zero, then corners should > remain sharp (not rounded) after spread radius is applied and prior to the > application of blur radius. Otherwise, the corners of the new shape will > have radii equal to the corresponding 'border-radius' value plus the > spread-radius value (or minus the spread-radius value if it is an inset > shadow, but no less than zero for the final spread shadow corner radius). I'm still slightly meh about the discontinuity in border-radius, but otherwise I like the precision in the new text. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 30 April 2010 23:57:08 UTC