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, 22 Jun 2010 17:23:03 +1200
Message-ID: <AANLkTikew8shOG_CCnrj5FtopEeMwGHJ1gL17swb3Jw2@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote:

> If I go into PhotoShop, and add a Drop Shadow effect to an object, setting
> the spread to 0, and the size to 100, then the shadow projects outside the
> object by about 100px. This is what Tab, fantasai and I are suggesting that
> we match.
>

I'm also in favour of that.

Apart from the other points made, I have another ... when there is no shadow
offset, the blurred area inside the shadow edge is not visible. I expect
authors will be surprised to find that the width of the visible blur is only
half the value they specified.

Rob
-- 
"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
53:5-6]
Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 05:23:31 GMT

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