W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2010

Re: [css3-background] Where we are with Blur value discussion

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 16:49:29 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinAB5IF2zxeIsoJ0lZMZuNubimH2DtLXTTEt5TG@mail.gmail.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, Brendan Kenny <bckenny@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 4:37 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday 2010-07-13 16:25 -0700, Brad Kemper wrote:
>> I was not the only one to think it should be described in a way
>> that was measurable, testable, and author-predictable, and that
>> the measure should be visually equal (in some way) to the length
>> authored.
>
> If you want that, the appropriate way to get that is to find out how
> existing graphics systems do blurring and describe it using the same
> terms already in use, not to invent a new set of terms and a new
> mechanism that's different from what existing systems do.

Explaining it in terms of existing graphics libraries may help
implementors, but it does nothing for authors, who have no idea how
the graphics libraries work or what the relationship is between a
radius parameter and "how big my shadow will be".

Including an example conversion into graphics-library terms may be
useful, but it's something that should be supplemental at best, not
something that we elevate as the primary definition of the feature.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2010 23:50:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:29 GMT