- From: Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 12:05:41 -0700
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: divya manian <divya.manian@gmail.com>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, " \" <www-style@w3.org>
fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > On 07/27/2010 11:29 AM, divya manian wrote: > > > > The reason I posted here was I think it is practical to have inset > > box-shadow ON TOP OF the image rather than below the image, despite > > what the spec says. I think for image elements inset box-shadow is > > not practical otherwise. inset box-shadow would be of great use if > > only for this issue. > > ... > > My view is, the spec should be altered to allow image to show below > > an inset box-shadow when an inset box-shadow is specified on the > > image element. There is no use-case for the other case where the > > inset box-shadow is behind the image. > > That's an interesting point. Perhaps it makes more sense for the > inset shadow to be on top of the content in *all* cases, not just > for replaced elements? I proposed something similar (not the same, though) in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Apr/0339.html and Simon Fraser said it would break existing webpages so I gave up. It does seem like drawing inset shadows on top is more likely to be what authors want. zw
Received on Tuesday, 27 July 2010 19:06:15 UTC