Is there a reason the forum strips text-shadow rules from inline CSS in posts and sigs?

Yes. It's because they look wack :Y

You should be thankful it doesn't also send someone round to your house with a baseball bat. :@

What they said.

Although really it's because BH only allows (some) CSS 2.x rules.

Not always :(

On big text (so titles, menus, etc) it's fine, and might even make things look good.

And if there's a noisy background image, it can (if done properly) help make things readable.

But for anything that's going to appear in a sig (i.e. small text, plain background), it can't look anything other than shit, and you should be ashamed with yourself for even considering it.

Oh ye of little imagination (fail)

MOD MADNESS :((

Write your sig HTML in a normal HTML document, open it, take a screen shot and save it as a mother fucking GIF and use that for your sig. That'll show the Bougthon. :C

I might make a PHP thing on my site that returns a .bmp, that'd probably annoy him more.

I could do some interesting things if I could use JavaScript, too :C

(giggle)

SVG FTW!

Ok, some of those look nice. But some are a bit 'home DTP app from 1995'.

But ok, I accept that with a bit of imagination and sensitivity it can be used well.

(handshake)

See, this is why I wont play Civ with you, you fucking traitor. :@

:'D

I still have a problem with it. I mean this shit should've worked 5 years ago. But now everyone's so used to doing anything like this in photoshop. And there's no downside to doing it that way, and it's quicker and far more flexible. I kinda feel like CSS should be designed on how we use the web and make sites, not on some ideology of how we should be making the web.

Fuck that! I want alpha-transparency and layers. :@

And I mean properly - with masks and grouping and so on - not having to hack about and save photos as PNGs and stuff.

Applying (text-)shadow should basically be a convenient shortcut to all the stuff that a graphics editor can do.

And then I can just tweak a text file or two, instead of having to output half a dozen images for different screen sizes, and re-generate files because the background is now a different colour.


And yeah, this should all have been done ten years ago. Stupid W3C twats. :@

Yeah but even with all that it's:

a few clicks in photoshop Vs. half an hour of typing, looking, tweaking, typing, looking...

(unless someone makes a visual thing)

The "visual thing" is called Photoshop? :P

Just needs a plugin to read styles from CSS, produce the appropriate image, then save again, instead of worrying about bloated image files.

I dunno, it would be such a small subset of what photoshop does. Would you have a cutdown UI which only allows what CSS can do or would you just make it discard anything not catered for in CSS when you export?

Either way is going to be unsatisfactory for people who know PS but not CSS, which is most of the people who do this sort of thing at most web design/dev places (ones large enough that coders don't design and designers don't code).

The designer is just going to want to use Photoshop and image files because they do far more. You'd be asking them to revert to something on the level of Paint.NET for the sake of saving a few kb?

What? No, I want CSS to be expanded to cater for all the relevant extra functionality.

So when a client says "can we have that in cerulean not navy", it's not a two week wait for the creative dept to get around to it, and a developer can just change one colour and have everything updated.