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

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

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 11:27:09 -0700
Message-ID: <4C21007D.2020204@inkedblade.net>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
CC: robert@ocallahan.org, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 06/21/2010 10:33 PM, Brad Kemper wrote:
> 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'.

Whatever it's called, it will be used for both shadow and glow effects,
and other effects we have not yet thought of. I see box-shadow less and
less as a shadow effect and more like a swiss-army-knife of graphical
border-edge tweaking.

Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 18:27:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:38:36 UTC