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 17:50:22 -0700
Message-Id: <C8310E8B-C74D-48D3-93D3-D27141B60E1A@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 2:57 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> Specifying just the point at which it must hit 2% or whatnot allows
> things like a linear gradient being used as a shadow, which we'd like
> to avoid.

I'm not convinced yet that _we_ shouldn't allow that (well, a shape gradient anyway, as linear gradients only go in one direction). I already bought into the part of the spec that says a specific algorithm is not required, and you haven't yet said anything to change my mind. 

If Gaussian is truly the no-brainer you say, then all implementors will use it or a close enough approximation anyway, with the same results. But I don't see why a UA shouldn't be allowed to create a nice looking blur in some other manner, such as a gradient between two corner softened shapes (if it's ugly, the implementors will hear about it, or users will move to prettier UAs), or why they shouldn't be allowed to blur by other means or maybe put some jitter or noise into the blur.
Received on Wednesday, 28 July 2010 00:51:37 GMT

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