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 22:33:02 -0700
Cc: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <99C1DB3F-813F-4427-B946-39A2DF35D4F6@gmail.com>
To: robert@ocallahan.org

On Jun 21, 2010, at 10:23 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:

> 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.

Seriously? You want to optimize for those uthors that use shadows, but are surprised by what they see when they fill in those first 2 values of box-shadow with something other than zero? Maybe they would also be surprised by the fact that it is called 'box-shadow' and not 'box-glow'.
Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 05:33:40 GMT

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