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

RE: [css3-background] box-shadow spread Multiple Choice Question

From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 17:36:56 +0000
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Brendan Kenny <bckenny@gmail.com>
CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <FA122FEC823D524CB516E4E0374D9DCF0151D1F2@TK5EX14MBXC136.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Regarding "blur-radius" vs "blur-diameter" vs. "blur-width" vs. "blur-factor" vs. "blur"...

Since it's not actually used in markup ("shadow-box-blur-radius: 15cm;" in CSS5?) now's a great time to just remove the 'radius' naming from 'blur-radius' in the spec and dodge the confusion going forward.


When I originally read the spec, I was thinking of blur radius in the sense of a "blurry expansion of the shape, somewhat like spread or scale" in which case the radius name was logical.  It meant that it's like an infinite number of circle-shaped lenses are positioned at every point along the geometry with the 'blur-radius' value as their radii, all contributing to a general blurring effect.
 
With the current definition where the blurring is centered on the geometry, diameter makes sense from the perspective that the markup-specified number is the diameter of those circle-shaped lenses.

One might argue 'width' is a better term in the sense that it is a thickness/width of blur along the shape and circles really don't have anything to do with it, and thus radii and diameters don't either.  Since width is already used in many places, I worry about using that word though.

-Brian
Received on Thursday, 10 June 2010 17:37:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:28 GMT