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

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

From: David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:42:43 -0500
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <E3AD1BBC-AA21-429C-8675-08102BC50FF4@apple.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
On Jun 11, 2010, at 4:22 PM, Brad Kemper wrote:

> 
> 
> On Jun 11, 2010, at 10:56 AM, David Hyatt <hyatt@apple.com> wrote:
> 
>> CoreGraphics draws the shadow in the Safari implementation.  We just give it the parameters and let it draw.  At best all we can do is alter the parameters we pass in.  Can you explain what the problem is with Safari's rendering?
> 
> Mainly that:
> 
> A) it doesn't match firefox (I didn't know which is more correct). And
> 
> B) that the width of the resulting blur area is not the width authored, nor half that width, nor anything easily guessable.
> 
>> If it's not something we can hack by changing the parameters, it's unlikely we'll be able to fix it.
> 
> I'm guessing that if there is some formula for determining how many pixels get blurred for a guassian radius of 'x', then you do do a little math on the parameters first to get more author-predictable results.

That's all I was checking.... hopefully it's something we can tweak.  We'll see if we can get an explanation as to why the blur doesn't match expectations also.

dave
Received on Friday, 11 June 2010 21:43:18 GMT

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