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

Re: [css3-background] vastly different takes on "blur"

From: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 13:25:36 -0700
Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <06AF8A5E-BD2E-4EC2-A32A-F30D4D369AF3@me.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
On Jun 11, 2010, at 1:18 PM, L. David Baron wrote:

> On Friday 2010-06-11 11:13 -0700, Simon Fraser wrote:
>> Something else we need to specify somewhere is whether shadows are
>> drawn before or after transforms.
> Presumably this is just a question of what should happen if the
> transform and the shadow are specified on the same element?  I tend
> to think that the shadow probably should be transformed, just as all
> other drawing operations for the element (its border and background)
> are transformed.

I agree with this. Having the shadow transformed allows us to maintain compatibility with our hardware compositing code path, too,

> If the shadow is on something inside the element with the transform,
> I feel quite strongly that the shadow must be transformed.

I also agree with this!

Received on Friday, 11 June 2010 20:26:11 UTC

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