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: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 11:47:49 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinw7jSzNe63JUlg1yYSOTqIUZVQtPiOM_yqavRH@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote:
> I agree with Brad here.  The full post, from which the quote below is extracted, captured it well I thought.
>
> Whether you think of the border model of CSS or the stroke model of SVG, the blurring *operation* has a thickness or width and the specification currently aligns with that numerically.
>
> The "impact outside the geometry" is a derivative of the blurring effect, not the primary result.

I've said before that I find that position defensible, certainly.
It's a consistent position.  I just disagree with it in terms of
usability and expectation.


> Imagine this line in the specification...
> # An outer box-shadow casts a shadow as if the border-box of the element were opaque.
>
> was changed to...
> # An outer box-shadow casts a shadow of the border-box.
> # UAs are permitted to treat the border-box as opaque
> # for the purposes of shadow rendering as a performance
> # optimization.
>
> That would arguably open the door for a more compelling user experience.

That's precisely the sort of thing that made us remove box-shadow in
the first place.  ^_^  box-shadow as it exists now is purposely a very
simple property that doesn't do anything fancy.


> For such a scenario, would you still consider the inner blur's contribution non-interesting?  I suspect not.

I suspect I would continue to find the inner blur uninteresting.  I've
never found it interesting so far, whether in box-shadow or in actual
image editing.  It's just part of the blur effect that makes it
pretty, to me.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 18:49:06 GMT

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