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 12:07:52 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinK7-eDQ_jOa1dfHi5TJlNnvWnZIc78OqhxlZHo@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> The point is, it it not reasonable to ignore the biggest existing usage of
> people that do use offsets and do perhaps want to actually see some of their
> shadow color at the opacity they specified  But we should pretend instead
> that the blur value does not have a measurable visible effect and is mainly
> just for growing the shadow?  That is not reasonable. The main purpose of
> spread is to grow the shadow and the main purpose of blur is to blur the
> shadow. Spread frees designers from having to hack blur for it's secondary
> effect, so they can grow the shadow without having to make it blurrier.

Sigh.  Brad, you're putting words in my, fantasai's, roc's, and
simon's mouths.  Nobody is saying anything like that.  Blur is for
blurring a shadow, not for growing it, obviously.  Everyone agrees on
that, and it would be silly to think otherwise.  Please stop
suggesting that we do.

What we're all saying is that, when we're thinking about how much to
blur, what we mentally care about is how much the blur extends out
from the normal shadow.  The amount that the blur extends into the
normal shadow isn't relevant to our decision on how much to blur.

So, please, fix your understanding of what we're saying, and then
reevaluate.  We're not as stupid as you seem to be thinking we are.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 21:39:30 GMT

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