Re: [css3-text] Should text-shadow have 'spread'?

On 01/23/2012 02:54 PM, fantasai wrote:
> On 01/23/2012 02:02 PM, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
>>
>> [Simon Fraser:]
>>>
>>> I don't think 'spread' should apply to text-shadow, yet CSS3 Text suggests
>>> that text-shadow follows box-shadow<http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-
>>> text/#text-shadow>.
>>>
>>> For rectangles and rounded-corner rectangles, 'spread' is easy to
>>> implement by insetting or outsetting the rectangle bounds. For arbitrary
>>> shapes, spread is vastly more difficult to implement, requiring either
>>> some complex path math, or pixel-based computations that are expensive to
>>> do at drawing time. There are also complexities related to whether spread
>>> makes sharp corners rounded etc.
>>>
>> Current IE10 builds support it so we'd certainly like to propose that it
>> does. It's author-friendly from a consistency standpoint in that it makes
>> the shadow syntax consistent with box-shadow.
>
> I think we should leave it in the L4 draft; we all agree on what the syntax
> should be, but figuring out exactly how it works seems to require a bit more
> discussion. Also, the CSS2.0 version did not include a spread radius, and
> since this spec is the replacement for that, I think we should just include
> the 2.0 features. That way it's more obvious that there are implementations
> that don't support the fourth value.

Wow, that wasn't clear at all. s/2.0 features/2.0 features in level 3/

~fantasai

Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 02:05:51 UTC