- From: Peter Beverloo <peter@lvp-media.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 17:28:57 +0200
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Sean Edison-Albright <sean.albright+css@gmail.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 17:23, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 8:09 AM, Peter Beverloo <peter@lvp-media.com> wrote:
>> While I agree that a "border-radius-style" property would be a more
>> appropriate solution than using negative values, there isn't a
>> "box-shadow-style" property for inset shadows.
>
> Indeed, but there doesn't need to be. There's not a lot of use for
> multiple different "styles" of shadows. Inset is pretty much the only
> one I can think of.
>
> That said, if box-shadow became a shorthand property, inset/normal
> would certainly be done by a property of its own.
Fair point. Furthermore, multiple shadows can be done using the
::outside pseudo-selector from the Generated and Replaced Content
spec[1]. Multiple border radixes are in that sense much more common.
>> I think it would be clearer to, if this proposal might make it to the
>> spec, be consistent and either add a "scooped" keyword to the
>> "border-radius" property value, or add a property named
>> "box-shadow-style". Since the latter has been implemented by various
>> vendors already,
>
> Who implements box-shadow-style? Chrome and FF don't, in my quick testing.
I meant that "box-shadow" has been implemented rather than the
"box-shadow-style" property, sorry.
>> my preference would be the following (where "normal"
>> would be the default value):
>>
>> foo {
>> border-radius: 2em 1em 4em / 0.5em 3em scooped;
>> }
>>
>> Con is that the border-radius shorthand gets fairly complex using this
>> approach..
>
> I'd rather avoid making shorthands really complex. ^_^
>
> ~TJ
Regards,
Peter Beverloo
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-content/#wrapping
Received on Wednesday, 30 June 2010 15:29:33 UTC