- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 08:32:15 -0700
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 3, 2010, at 5:05 PM, Brad Kemper wrote: > >> 1. Better than nothing, but it is not just distortion of elipses that suffers. It is scaling of elipses, too, because the scaling is not nearly enough. Consider the difference between the inside and outside radii of a border whose 'border-radius' measurement is close to its 'border-width'. It is a big difference, with the inside at or near zero radius. Now consider how little you have to scale a typical element to get offsets of a few (or even several) pixels. Hardly any at all, so that the corners look very odd, not much at all like a real offset. > > I've posted a picture that compares option 1 (scaling to simulate spread) with option 2 (offsetting to get spread): > > http://www.bradclicks.com/cssplay/spread_comparison.png > > Option 1 is not as terrible as I thought, but is still furthest from normal expectations, with uneven amounts of spread around the corners. > Okay, I have to admit that the scaled spread isn't quite as pretty. In that case I support whichever option Brad is advocating. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 4 June 2010 15:33:12 UTC