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

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

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 17:18:12 -0700
Message-Id: <E124359D-29E2-4430-A39A-8F6E503410C6@gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Brendan Kenny <bckenny@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>


On Jun 21, 2010, at 2:31 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>  
wrote:

>> The size of the blur when you provide a distance measurement for  
>> blur can
>> not be irrelevant. It is the primary reason and use case for having  
>> blur on
>> a shadow!
>
> What I mean is that the amount which the blur extends inward really
> doesn't matter to me.  What's most important when I'm blurring a
> shadow is how big the shadow becomes.

Then you should just use spread, with no blur. It makes the shadow get  
bigger. The blur value is for making it blurrier. 
Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 00:19:05 GMT

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