- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 14:03:11 -0700
- To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
- Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Jun 11, 2010, at 11:13 AM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote: > I don't think the current definition, which describes the blur in > terms of a gradient, is good for shapes with concave portions. I don't know why not. It doesn't say it's a gradient, it just defines the size of the region to blur within. I think that saying that a 15px blur covers a perimeter that is 15px wide will be a whole lot more understandable and predictable and meaningful for authors than to ask them to guess how much that will be based on the results of plugging that length into a guassian function.
Received on Friday, 11 June 2010 21:04:06 UTC