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

Re: [css3-background] vastly different takes on "blur"

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 12:15:34 -0700
Message-ID: <4C128B56.5050503@inkedblade.net>
To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
CC: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 06/11/2010 11:13 AM, Simon Fraser wrote:
>
> The radius refers to the radius of the gaussian blur that is applied to a
> masked representation of the element, in order to render the shadow. As
> I've mentioned before, I think shadows are better specified in terms of
> the steps required to render them, rather than hand-waving descriptions
> of what things look like. Maybe it could even reference a set of SVG
> filters that would achieve the same effect? (Aside: can shadows with
> 'spread' be implemented via SVG filters?)
>
> If we were to ever have shadows applied to shapes with concave outlines
> (e.g. if we allow shadows to apply to SVG elements), then I think it
> will matter how the shadow blur is defined. I don't think the current
> definition, which describes the blur in terms of a gradient, is good
> for shapes with concave portions.

So, let me point out that I am not a graphics expert. The implication of
this is that I have no idea what you want me to spec here. Therefore I
suggest you explain what you want in the spec in terms specific enough
that I can put it in the spec, because I cannot induce what you want
me to write from what you have written so far.

> Something else we need to specify somewhere is whether shadows are
> drawn before or after transforms.

If you want that specified in css3-backgrounds, then make a suggestion
one way or the other. Because I have no idea which is better.

~fantasai
Received on Friday, 11 June 2010 19:16:15 GMT

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