W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2010

Re: [css3-background] box-shadow spread Multiple Choice Question

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2010 13:04:30 -0700
Message-ID: <4C0BFF4E.4080802@inkedblade.net>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 06/06/2010 10:22 AM, Brad Kemper wrote:
> On Jun 3, 2010, at 5:05 PM, Brad Kemper wrote:
>> 3a. In my tests, it actually looked better than 2a's truer offset, and if
>> it is better for performance, so much the better.
> Oops, I left out number 4 (and 4a), which was "prefer #2 (or 2a), but allow #3
> (or 3a)." So, I'd insert those options as follows (in descending order of
> preference).
> 3a
> 4a
> 2a
> 3
> 4

I think, actually, that it is important for us to keep to the stricter
definition of spread. I'm not sure what examples you looked at, but the
difference in effect is more exaggerated when the curve is more
extremely elliptical. E.g. if you take a 10:1 ratio of radii and have
1 be the border thickness, #3's distortion will be more obvious.

But super-elliptical corners are relatively rare. A more important
consideration is that we're likely to add other shapes such as angled
corners in the future, and I think approach #4 is both easier to
generalize and gives better results.

   /      \
  |        |
  |        |

If you take approach #3 with angled corners, I think you'll see that
the shadow spread at the angles is noticeably thinner than at the
straight sides.

Received on Sunday, 6 June 2010 20:05:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:47 UTC