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 17:55:12 -0700
Message-Id: <E36E2F17-828A-4194-813C-77E066E7FC84@gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>


On Jun 21, 2010, at 3:48 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>  
wrote:

> 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.

I'm just blown away. Absolutely blown away. I can't believe it is even  
controversial. That we should have a distance measurement for setting  
an amount of blur, and then we end up with an overall blur width that  
is twice that distance instead of the distance typed... Words fail me  
for politely describing how screwed up that is.

I liken it to PostScript, where a border is drawn down the center of a  
path: half inside, and half outside. Sure, you may be interested in  
knowing how much wider that border is going to make your box, but at  
the end of the day, if you ask for a 19 point border, you get get a 19  
point border, not a 38 point border. You don't have to specify 8.5  
points to get a 19 point border. Because it is a border you are  
setting in PostScript, not a distance that the border extends the box  
width on one side.

Spread is different. The only noticeable result of spread is the  
growth of the shadow. The most noticeable result of blur is how much  
blurrier it became.

Unbelievable. 
  
Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 00:56:00 GMT

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