- From: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
- Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 17:36:11 -0800
- To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Jordan OSETE <jordan.osete@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Mar 1, 2011, at 5:27 PM, Brian Manthos wrote: >> From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On >> Behalf Of Simon Fraser >> The problem with spread radius, which we already discussed in the context >> of box-shadow, is whether it makes sharp corners rounded. This is especially >> problematic with border-radius, because you have a potential discontinuity >> between zero border radius causing spread to retain sharp corners, and a any >> small, but non-zero radius resulting in in a shadow with obviously rounded >> corners. >> >> I think people will be more sensitive to this in the context of text, and that >> text stroke gives a more predictable visual result. > > > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-text/ > http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-text/#text-shadow > > These two drafts agree: "<shadow> is the same as defined for the ‘box-shadow’ property except that the ‘inset’ keyword is not allowed." > > Simon, are you suggesting that the current text-shadow spec should be reconsidered *or* that text-outline should stay alive because of the distinction? (Or both?) I think spread is problematic (if convenient) in the context of box-shadow, and, although I see the benefit of keeping text-shadow and box-shadow similar, I question the utility of spread for text-shadow. I also have no idea how to implement spread on non-rounded-rect shapes, and whether it's possible in a way that has the same behavior as box-shadow's spread in terms of corner rounding. So my preference would be to drop spread everywhere, but it's probably too late for that for box-shadow. I don't like text-outline, because it's doing blurring but doesn't have 'shadow' in the name. Simon
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2011 01:36:58 UTC