- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:48:00 -0700
- To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 06/21/2010 03:17 PM, Brian Manthos wrote: > Simon Fraser: >> I'm with Tab here. And since two browsers already implement it this way, I >> see no reason to change it. > > I thought Brad had shown that those two implementations may agree in > principle but don't agree in current renderings. > > You're proposing we change the spec *again* to add a multiply by 2 to the prose? > > I thought we had Last Call already. We're having Last Call *now*: box-shadow has not yet gone through Last Call, and since we had to go back to Last Call for the background-clip changes, we added box-shadow back in to go through LC as well. The LCWD was published last week, so now we're collecting comments: http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-background/issues-lc-2010 FWIW, I agree with Tab and Simon; it makes more sense to me for the blur value to define the increase in the shadow's size, just like spread. ~fantasai
Received on Monday, 21 June 2010 22:48:36 UTC