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, 27 Jul 2010 14:29:43 -0700
Message-Id: <28617127-4D93-4336-9019-0E3C946AD211@gmail.com>
Cc: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Dennis Amrouche <dennis@screenlabor.de>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, SimonFraser <smfr@me.com>, Brendan Kenny <bckenny@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
On Jul 27, 2010, at 9:44 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> We can automate it, we just have to build the automation manually -
> screenshot and then run pixel comparisons.

So what would you use for for the screen shot? The approximate Gaussian or the true Gaussian? Would this mean that if a better algorithm is used that better approximates natural shadow blurs in half the time of a Gaussian then it isn't allowed? Or that a simple stepped blend with appropriate corner rounding (optimized for a number of steps that were good enough for the size of the e-ink halftone dots it used, say) wouldn't be allowed if it was on hardware optimized to render it that way?
Received on Tuesday, 27 July 2010 21:30:56 GMT

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