- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 19:10:23 -0800
- To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Mar 3, 2011, at 6:16 PM, Brian Manthos wrote: > Perhaps I was confused by the title of the mail but... > >>>> Ok, if we have interop on currentColor, we can update the spec that way. >>>> I'm kindof surprised, because if you do that for text-shadows, it's >>>> really almost never the right color. >>>> >>>> ~fantasai >>> >>> You've said this twice now, but I'm curious to here why or at least in what >> way it's "wrong". >> >> It's hard to imagine many wanting their text-shadow to be the color of their >> text, as that would usually make the text unreadable. If text-shadow had >> spread it might be useful for creating a pseudo-bold, I suppose, but that >> would be too hacky for us to encourage in the absence of existing usage. > > I thought we were -- at least initially -- talking about box-shadow. > > If the only reason to consider currentColor as "wrong" is because "text-shadow might look bad", then it should really be a text-shadow tweak (like the no-inset thing) rather than a box-shadow UA-defined shenanigan. > > Or am I missing something? With text-shadow, currentColor is very likely to produce bad results. With box-shadow, it is merely a useless default. IF your text color is black or gray, then by coincidence that could be a good box-shadow color too. Otherwise, it is unlikely that the color you picked for your text will just happen to be a reasonable design choice for the shadow too. So with box-shadow it is a weird and unexpected choice for a default (that you might not realize if you were using black as the text color), but with text-shadow it is a bad default that authors will need to avoid.
Received on Friday, 4 March 2011 03:10:59 UTC