Subscribe: Comments on: Box Shadow
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
andreas amann  box shadow  box  bug  bugs  css  features  fixed  property  safari  shadow  standards  support  webkit  work  working hard 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on: Box Shadow

Comments on: Box Shadow

Open Source Web Browser Engine

Last Build Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 22:03:34 +0000


By: richcon

Sun, 14 Jan 2007 01:01:43 +0000

While fixing bugs is undeniably important, I for one am glad to see the WebKit team pushing ahead with support for future standards like CSS3 and other breakthrough-but-seldom-used standards like SVG. This work is critical to the future evolution of the Web, and to testing these standards and helping to ready them for prime time. And that, combined with Gecko's support, will (hopefully) help prod that other browser maker into supporting them as well. Bug fixing and adding new features are both important and need to be balanced, and as far as I can tell, the WebKit team is doing a great job at that.

By: Andreas Amann

Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:30:09 +0000

After making a very reduced test case it seems as if the box-shadow indeed works correctly on a div - I guess I will have to figure out why it was not showing up when having the full page. Sorry for the confusion and I like the new property - it looks great!

By: Andreas Amann

Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:26:59 +0000

Darn - there should have been a
in the text above...

By: Andreas Amann

Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:25:11 +0000

I am not sure I understand "(3) It works on inline flows that span multiple lines." correctly - I tried to se t a shadow on a (which is used as a rollover popup on my Dashboard widget) using the latest nightly and it didn't give me any shadow... It would be great if it worked on block divs as well so that I don't have to resort to manually building a shadow using multiple divs around the content.

By: daniel

Tue, 09 Jan 2007 14:16:00 +0000

Everyone can see that you are working hard to make WebKit/Safari better every day by downloading the nightlies. Really! Correct me if I'm wrong but fixing bugs affects more pages than implementing features that are specific to WebKit. How many CSS-files contain these attributes that are unsupported by any other browser. Write about the bugs you fixed, too. It's important work! Personally I would love to read things like: "Bug #6790 is fixed, position:fixed works now." Or even better: "This week was our internal 'Week of CSS Bugs': We resolved all 52 bugs that have CSS in the title. (And also Bug 6790)"

By: hyatt

Tue, 09 Jan 2007 09:56:00 +0000

We are working very hard on compatibility always. I did box-shadow by myself in a handful of hours. In this case it was trivial to add because CG provides the shadow drawing support, and the parsing of the property is identical to text-shadow. This made it quite easy to just blast it out quickly. When features like this land in the tree, it does not mean compatibility work is "not getting done." I blog about these sorts of features because I like to think they are interesting. If you'd rather I sit around blogging about our compatbility fixes, I could do that, but I think it would make for a boring blog. :) "Today I fixed a bug where table cells incorrectly expanded to encompass floats inside an overflow:auto block with a fixed height." Zzzzz. There are many many people working very hard every day on compatibility. Browsing the cited page of Safari bugs with a nightly, you will notice that many of the issues have in fact been fixed.

By: sjakelien

Tue, 09 Jan 2007 09:12:52 +0000

With all due respect, and indeed, it's due, the following: Since this web site is 'powered by WordPress', you WebKit guys should have noticed that the text editing experience in WordPress is not as rich if you use Safari, compared to FireFox and (god forbid) IE. Being a software developer, it's kind of embarassing that in some cases, I cannot support Safari, because I have to offer my customers web-based functionality that is not available through Safari. What I want to say is: I like the very strict, almost puritan approach of adhering to standards, but the current efforts in offering CSS3 functionality (which, as pointed out, is not even close to being a standard) could be better directed towards ensuring compatibility with de facto standards like WordPress, or TinyMCE . Sorry for the interruption.

By: pauldwaite

Mon, 08 Jan 2007 09:42:46 +0000

> What would it hurt to have them as they should be? As I understand it, the idea is that implementations of properties that aren't specified yet may be used to work out problems with the spec. The spec may change based on things discovered frm developers experimenting with these properties. As such, the final box-shadow property may be specified differently than -webkit-box-shadow, thus -webkit-box-shadow may behave in unexpected ways (e.g. like the width property behaves differently in Windows Internet Explorer 5). Using the prefix until the spec is final means that experimental code won't break.

By: phill

Mon, 08 Jan 2007 08:46:49 +0000

I also agree with wootest. I like the idea to drop the prefix "-webkit-" and "-moz-". What would it hurt to have them as they should be?

By: markus

Mon, 08 Jan 2007 08:01:18 +0000

A suggestion, actually also for the previous post, can you post screenshots too? Not everyone has the latest webkit nor Mac but would like to see how it looks. Thanks!