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

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

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 16:56:38 -0700
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, Brendan Kenny <bckenny@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20100714235638.GA7756@pickering.dbaron.org>
On Wednesday 2010-07-14 16:19 -0700, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> That part's not acceptable.  Authors win over implementors in general,
> and in this case having the authors perform mental math or
> guess-and-check every single time they use a shadow (or force them to
> develop an intuition for it) versus implementors figuring out the
> proper conversion once and putting that in their code isn't even a
> contest.  Authors win.

Authors don't read the spec every time they use the 'box-shadow'
property, and most don't read it ever.  So the spec should still
describe how it works using existing terminology that implementors
will understand.

I'm fine with having you come up with a measurement that you think
is better for authors.

However, that measurement should be explained in the spec in terms
of the normal terminology used to describe blur effects.

And writing the explanation in terms of the normal terminology might
lead you to discover places where you've invented your own
terminology where the existing terminology will work just fine.

-David

-- 
L. David Baron                                 http://dbaron.org/
Mozilla Corporation                       http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Wednesday, 14 July 2010 23:57:10 GMT

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