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

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

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:48:00 -0700
Message-ID: <4C1FEC20.7010509@inkedblade.net>
To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 06/21/2010 03:17 PM, Brian Manthos wrote:
> Simon Fraser:
>> I'm with Tab here. And since two browsers already implement it this way, I
>> see no reason to change it.
>
> I thought Brad had shown that those two implementations may agree in
> principle but don't agree in current renderings.
>
> You're proposing we change the spec *again* to add a multiply by 2 to the prose?
>
> I thought we had Last Call already.

We're having Last Call *now*: box-shadow has not yet gone through
Last Call, and since we had to go back to Last Call for the
background-clip changes, we added box-shadow back in to go through
LC as well. The LCWD was published last week, so now we're collecting
comments:
   http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-background/issues-lc-2010

FWIW, I agree with Tab and Simon; it makes more sense to me for the
blur value to define the increase in the shadow's size, just like
spread.

~fantasai
Received on Monday, 21 June 2010 22:48:36 GMT

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