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: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:17:24 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTimwXV4X59WysNxTWV5jXZsmWBPQ_pvYGEnT74Fz@mail.gmail.com>
To: robert@ocallahan.org
Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, 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 Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
> 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?

I have no opinion on the name, but the most intuitive thing for me is
for the specified length to be the amount that the blur extends out of
the native shadow box.

Received on Tuesday, 15 June 2010 00:18:19 UTC

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