On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com> wrote: > On 14/09/2011 11:18 PM, Brad Kemper wrote: >> >> The way you describe hiding parts of the shadow by specifying them >> per-edge sounds awkward and unnatural. The UA would have to be able >> to have separate offsets and blurs and spreads and colors for each >> side, somehow joined at the corners. But based on your use case, >> really all you need is a way to crop the shadow. Using >> overflow:hidden is not that hacky a way to do it, and much more >> natural than your idea. > > > I'm not sure what Shi really wants. > > Maybe a mock up graphic may help us know what you are seeking. The way you > described the corner joins in a way that is not how box-shadow currently > works makes me wonder if this can not be done another way. > > The below demo may be more the rendering you are wanting. > > http://css-class.com/test/css/3/gradients/drop-shadows.htm <http://blog.w3conversions.com/2011/09/css3-spread-value-and-box-shadow-on-one-side-only/> is a blog post showing one method to achieve a shadow on only one side of an element. This only has minimal reasoning as to *why* you'd want it, but one possible explanation is to achieve more of a "lifted" look, where the shadow is smaller than the box. I think this is already well-achieved by having a negative spread radius (method 2 in the linked blog post). Unless there's a good reason why this won't work, I don't think it's necessary to add anything to box-shadow. ~TJReceived on Wednesday, 14 September 2011 15:18:15 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:04 UTC