- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 16:13:05 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.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 Aug 3, 2010, at 12:41 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Right. Dimming the image is not a normal side effect of inner shadows.
Received on Tuesday, 3 August 2010 23:14:28 UTC