Re: [css3-background]Positioning of box-shadow blurs?

One common word to represent the "sharp" edge you're talking about is
"hard". As in, "to cast a hard shadow, a blur-radius of 0px should be used".
I think "grow" actually represents the idea more clearly than "thicken", if
the spread ends up changing the shape. If  spread ends up being defined to
leave the shape alone, then I think "scale" would be the best.

~6 out of 5 statisticians say that the number of statistics that either make
no sense or use ridiculous timescales at all has dropped over 164% in the
last 5.62474396842 years.

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Apr 29, 2010, at 1:33 PM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>  How about this:
>>>
>>> # The third length is a blur radius. Negative values are not allowed. The
>>> blurring region should be an area the width of this value, running along
>>> and
>>> centered on the edge of the shadow shape (a shape that otherwise mimics
>>> the shape of the border box, including any border-radius, absent the
>>> application of spread radius).  The shadow should should transition from
>>> the shadow color on the inner edge of this region, to transparent at the
>>> outer edge of this region. If the blur radius is 0, the shadow has a
>>> sharp
>>> edge, otherwise the larger the value, the more the edge of the shadow is
>>> blurred.  The exact algorithm is not specified.
>>>
>>> #The fourth length is a spread radius. Positive values cause the shadow
>>> to grow in all directions by the specified radius. Negative values cause
>>> the shadow to shrink. The shadow should not change shape when a
>>> spread radius is applied: sharp corners should remain sharp ***prior to
>>> the
>>> application of blur radius***.
>>>
>>
>> Definitely better.
>>
>> The addition of the word edge near the word sharp helps address the
>> collision I was concerned with.
>>
>> I'm still bothered by this phrase "should not change shape", in the same
>> way Sylvain is.
>> But it seems there's reluctance to remove it even though some of us find
>> it at best confusing and distracting.
>>
>
> I'm not reluctant, just looking at one thing at a time. I also think the
> word "grow" can be replaced with something more accurate and precise, but
> I'm not sure what exactly yet. "to be thickened" is more the right idea than
> "to grow", but not all that precise.
>
> Anyway, how about this to replace that last sentence:
>
> If 'border-radius' is zero, then corners should remain sharp (not rounded)
> after spread radius is applied and prior to the application of blur radius.
>
>
>
>  Minor detail: "should should" -> "should"
>>
>
> Oops.
>
> By the way, fantasai wrote what is in that part of the editors draft now (I
> think), so she may have more to say about the wording too.