One day, Neil Crosby wanted to shadow some text using CSS. "So, the challenge was simple. Come up with some CSS which will produce drop shadows in as large a percentage of peoples’ web browsers as possible, leaving the browsers which are incapable of showing text shadows with unstyled text. Sounds simple? Well, for the most part, it was…
There are already tutorials out on the web which tell you how to produce text-shadows for various web browsers. The problem is, they all seem to focus on one particular browser, rather than producing a cross
Since the idea of CSS2.2 was raised, there’s been some discussion as to what it should encompass, who should be responsible for the spec, and what it should be called; here’s what I think:
First, it doesn’t matter what it’s called. Whether it’s referred to as CSS2.2, CSS2.1+, CSS3 Interim, or whatever, makes no difference. It doesn’t need to have a name at all; the important thing is that we have it.
Second, it doesn’t need to be an official recommendation from the W3C; in fact, it may be easier if it’s not. The optimal solution
Imagine this: overnight, the W3C makes CSS3 a standard, and the browsers end their differences (IE included) and support everything in CSS3. How will this affect you? What magical things that CSS3 offers will bring your webpages to life?
For instance, CSS3 gives us cross–browser opacity, standardized Image Replacement (via display: icon), and automatic box and text shadows, not to mention being able to control the resizing of a window through CSS. And there’s a lot more where that came from.
But then you wake up and realize that complete
RSS/XML