- From: Axel Dahmen <brille1@hotmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 02:54:53 +0100
- To: www-style@w3.org
Still, it appears odd to me that it'd require two different CSS rules, one for rendering text and one for rendering images - which in case of vector images is quite similar to rendering text. This is particularly true for bullet lists having the bullet be an image. Or for inline images which - from the author's perspective - are basically no different from other inline content. Not to mention the overhead for creating animated/transitioned shadows. I don't see a reason for differentiating between text and images. They're all plain content with irregular shape. Regards, Axel ------------ "Tab Atkins Jr." schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:CAAWBYDA2GP3wyOL7Z=PV3Uq1f=8-8OEH1GfBq9cX0WWEeWhEFA@mail.gmail.com... On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:01 AM, Axel Dahmen <brille1@hotmail.com> wrote: > Since box-shadow doesn't apply to content but only to boxes, whereas > text-shadow applies to the content itself, I suggest to amend the > text-shadow property specification to have this property also apply to > inline replaced content, e.g. semi-transparent images, like PNG images > with > transparent areas. text-shadow is for text, and makes assumptions about how shadows are cast - its the geometry of the text, unrelated to how transparent the text is (similar to how box-shadow is based on the geometry of the box, unrelated to the transparency of its background/etc). Having it respond to transparency for inline elements would be an odd departure. For a shadow that does respond to transparency, we have the drop-shadow() filter, defined in the Filters spec. It works on all elements. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 29 January 2015 01:56:42 UTC