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

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

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:57:03 +0200
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Dennis Amrouche <dennis@screenlabor.de>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, Brendan Kenny <bckenny@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E83557C8-376A-4D9C-8680-ED5E18D671B6@apple.com>
To: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
Ins't conformance is that, where the shadow is measurable, it measures correctly as being equal to the result of a gaussian blur of the given radius, to the accuracy of expression of the implementation (e.g. 8-bit pixels).

This completely avoids the question of an edge, which doesn't exist in a gaussian anyway.

On Jul 27, 2010, at 5:58 , Sylvain Galineau wrote:

>> From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On
>> Behalf Of Tab Atkins Jr.
> 
> 
>> So, yeah, like Brad says, if the "range of pixels within which the
>> shadow becomes effectively invisible to the human eye" is a bit off at
>> very high shadow blur lengths, you'll never notice.  It's a pretty
>> unimportant point.
> 
> To the human eye, sure. Now, can we  talk about testing implementations 
> for conformance ?

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 27 July 2010 13:57:39 GMT

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