- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 02:11:08 +0000
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
[fantasai:] > > 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/ > If that was supposed to clarify everything I've missed it :(
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 02:12:24 UTC