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, 21 Jun 2010 17:36:54 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTimq72kMIIhfiNu3y_ddA4KEp0LNaPpaMszVBKs2@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@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 Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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.

What?  This doesn't even make sense.  Why would I want to use spread
when I'm interested in blurring a shadow?

I didn't say I'm using blur *to make the shadow bigger*.  I said that
all I care about when blurring is how much bigger the shadow gets.  I
just don't care how far the blurring effect extends *into* the shadow,
is all, so long as it looks pretty.

I honestly was not aware before this conversation that the inner part
of the blur was supposed to be the same width as the outer part,
*because it's never been important to me*.  I expect it to continue to
be unimportant.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 00:37:56 GMT

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