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: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 11:20:47 -0700
Message-ID: <4C22507F.2040005@inkedblade.net>
To: Brendan Kenny <bckenny@gmail.com>
CC: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 06/23/2010 11:14 AM, Brendan Kenny wrote:
>
> Just to be clear, aren't the mockups for each option going to be the
> same thing? For instance, wouldn't Simon's example
>
> http://smfr.org/misc/shadow.html
>
> just be accompanied by the question
>
> "Would you describe this as 'blur: 8px' or 'blur: 16px'?"
>
> ?

The examples should be diagrammed with dimensions, so there's
no guessing e.g. how big the opaque part is compared to the
original box. I think it's interesting to note that the blur
centers on the edge of the shadow: I suspect many people had
not realized that. (I didn't, until working on this aspect of
the spec.)

If we also want realistic examples (rather than complete offsets
like in Simon's example), we'd want one with an offset shadow,
and another with zero offsets to show the common use cases.

~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2010 18:21:26 GMT

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