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

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

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:14:17 +1200
Message-ID: <AANLkTiloVYKzUIQlUBXLL0b0lNGL-JVnE3IjkUJl-6T1@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: Brendan Kenny <bckenny@gmail.com>, 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>
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:

> Gecko gives me a blur width that is about twice as wide as the authored
> amount, so I still want to change that to be a more straightforward 1:1
> relationship.

Yeah. Right now we make a blurred region whose width is twice the "blur
radius" and which is centered on the shadow edge. Cutting that in half to
match the spec could be done, but it seems a less intuitive interpretation
of "radius". Our implementation has the property that the pixels affected by
the blur are those whose distance from the shadow edge is less than the
"blur radius". Am I alone in thinking that makes sense?

"He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are
healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his
own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah
Received on Tuesday, 15 June 2010 00:14:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:36 UTC