ISSUE-40: Should the <length> <length> offset be optional in a shadow?
Should the <length> <length> offset be optional in a shadow?
- CSS3 Backgrounds and Borders
- Raised by:
- Bert Bos
- Opened on:
- See also thread at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2008May/0035.html
1) [Minor:] the grammar contains two errors: it requires at least two shadows instead of one; and it makes the comma optional. The best fix depends on the answer to the next question.
2) The offset (<length> <length>) is optional and defaults to '0 0', which means that an omitted offset makes the shadow invisible and is thus almost never useful. There are at least two solutions: require an offset or make the default more useful.
The similar 'text-shadow' property (http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-css3-text-20070306/#text-shadow) makes the offset required. Whatever solution is chosen, 'box-shadow' and 'text-shadow' should probably have the same syntax.
* Solution 1, don't omit the offset:
none | <shadow> [ , <shadow> ]*
where <shadow> is
<length> <length> <length>? <color>? |
<color> <length> <length> <length>?
* Solution 2, better default offset:
An omitted offset could default to '1px 1px' or to a value chosen by the UA.
- Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- [Publish] [css-position] Publish CSS Positioned Layout Working Draft (from Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com on 2015-01-12)
- [css3-background] Issues and Proposed Resolutions (from firstname.lastname@example.org on 2008-05-13)
- ISSUE-40 (box-shadow grammar): Should the <length> <length> offset be optional in a shadow? [CSS3 Backgrounds and Borders] (from email@example.com on 2008-05-07)
non-zero default offsets rejected: nobody likes this idea and it's inconsistent with text-shadowElika Etemad, 12 May 2008, 21:12:50
making optional offsets rejected, issue open for grammar errors fixElika Etemad, 12 May 2008, 21:19:57
Display change log