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 13:00:11 +1200
Message-ID: <AANLkTil8duZgCvdhlBAQJ_X6s12L79gqmBRfxfDNvM3f@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
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 Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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.

That's what we currently do, but not what the spec currently says. Currently
the spec says the blur will extend out of the normal shadow box by half of
the specified length.

"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 01:00:39 UTC

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