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

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

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 14:07:48 -0700
Message-Id: <E2D131F8-D481-42C6-A124-83F0A211789D@gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, 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 2:03 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> 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.

I didn't mean to hit "send" just yet. I also wanted to ask if the UA  
couldn't just go some math first to translate that desired "blur  
region width" into the guassian input length you need.

And also that I don't know what is meant by the term "hand waving" in  
your other post. 
Received on Friday, 11 June 2010 21:08:34 GMT

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