- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 15:49:05 -0700
- To: Brendan Kenny <bckenny@gmail.com>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Jun 4, 2010, at 10:41 AM, Brendan Kenny <bckenny@gmail.com> wrote: > Is there a reason why (1) needs to be specified as a length? It seems > more natural to specify a scale as a number multiplier or percentage. > This would also preserve shape, regardless of width/height ratio. That would make it a very different feature. We are not looking to add features at this stage, just clarify what the rendering can/should be for the features the WG agreed to already. And as I've said in the past, spread is not something created in order to simulate some phenomenon observed in nature. It is intended to give greater control of the placement and extent of the shadow at a level consistent with what is commonly available when creating shadows in familiar ways using tools such Photoshop. Preserving aspect ratio when specifying a percentage shadow-scaling factor would make the feature far less useful to those accustomed to being able to set actual spread for their shadows.
Received on Friday, 4 June 2010 22:49:52 UTC