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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 17:21:47 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTikd2oH_zVMW5JM3hVH5vHToKPsoUD3rvSEAbIYJ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Testability question.
>
> As we converge on the final language, can we make sure that it expresses where -- regardless of specifics of blur algorithm -- a test harness could check for fully transparent or fully opaque pixels?
>
> What I mean is that there should be a no-man's-land beyond the edge of the specified blur region where no blurred pixels should be found.
>
>
> My impression is that the intentional flexibility in the specification is (a) about how the blur ramps up / down -- linear, exponential, etc. -- and the impact of neighboring pixels and (b) NOT about allowing the blur to bleed off to infinity or to shrink to barely perceptible.

Correct.  Defining the outer edges of the blur is precisely what this
thread is about.  We want to be able to specify that precisely, even
if we don't specify what happens inside those boundaries.

~TJ
Received on Saturday, 12 June 2010 00:22:42 GMT

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