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

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

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 13:53:44 -0700
Message-Id: <5E4031B1-988F-4251-AB06-F01CE2BBCF18@gmail.com>
To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
Cc: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Jun 11, 2010, at 1:25 PM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote:

> 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!
> Simon

Fine with me. Should this be put in the Transforms module, rather than  
adding a reference to it in B&B (since B&B seems to be closer to CR,  
and would be better off not refering to a WD module)?
Received on Friday, 11 June 2010 20:56:33 UTC

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