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

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

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 18:22:15 -0700
Message-Id: <1922EFCE-0195-4EA1-AF5B-3A22341795DB@gmail.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>

On Jul 13, 2010, at 5:24 PM, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:

> See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_blur , which
> uses the term "radius" as the characteristic of a blur twice, but
> doesn't use the term "distance" as the characteristic of a blur
> (though it does use "distance" in other contexts).

Yes, it talks about solving for G(x,y), where x and why are the distances in the end result, a result that can be measured in pixels in our case, which is what we should be most interested in. Few authors will understand the math, or what it took to get to the result, or care what the standard deviation is for the equation. What they care about is the result. I really font care what number you stick into the equation (whether it is a radius of something, a standard deviation, pi, or your lucky number), as long as the measurable extent of the blurry area has some direct, measurable, & obvious relationship to the length measurement I provided when I asked for some blurriness. 
Received on Wednesday, 14 July 2010 01:23:24 GMT

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