- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 12:41:14 -0700
- To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
- Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, divya manian <divya.manian@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote: > On Aug 3, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote: >>> So one thing I don't understand about this proposed use of >>> inset shadow, illustrated at >>> <http://dl.dropbox.com/u/952/pola/index.html>, is why the >>> background-image is dimmed out at all. >>> >>> The inset shadow goes from fully opaque at the edges of the >>> "hole", to fully transparent over most of the hole (by some >>> distance related to the blur radius from the edge). So, >>> outside the influence of the shadow, the background-image >>> should be fully revealed. Why is it dimmed out? >> >> Because it's a different image. The one on the left is pola.jpg, the >> one on the right is pola-trans.jpg. > > I'm asking about the desired effect, not specifically how it's illustrated > by <http://dl.dropbox.com/u/952/pola/index.html>. Ah, kk. The desired effect is for it to act like you assume it should - it should go fully transparent internally. Any further effect should be achieved by something else, such as providing another image. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 3 August 2010 19:42:17 UTC