- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 12:58:05 -0700
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gluesoft.co.jp>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 11:05 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > On 04/08/2011 10:47 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 10:38 AM, fantasai<fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I suggest we remove the 'text-outline' property -- 'text-shadow' >>>>> should cover it. >>>> >>>> I don't have answer to this question, sorry again -- fantasai? >>> >>> I have no problem with that. It was even marked as a suggestion in the >>> draft already. ;) >> >> I'd disagree with this - text-shadow isn't an adequate replacement for >> a real outline/stroke. Shadows do a half-job, but you need 4 or 8 >> shadows in your code to do it, and they lose detail in a way that's >> pretty bad for some fonts. >> >> Brad had a really good diagram showing the distinction between shadow >> and outline, and just how much better a real outline looks in some >> situations. > > The 'text-outline' property wasn't about stroking the letters. It did > exactly the same thing as spread on text shadows. Although it could be > argued that it should keep corners sharp rather than rounding them, it > doesn't encroach on the glyph face, only paints around it. > > Here's an illustration of the effect: > http://www.fireworkszone.com/tuts/626/thicktextoutline_1.gif > The text outline is the white part. Oh, okay. If the effect of text-outline really was equivalent to just doing a spread on text-shadow, then there's no harm removing it. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 8 April 2011 19:58:54 UTC