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: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 12:19:47 -0700
Message-Id: <AA198D7B-9076-4AD7-9CC6-2D3CBDAB0051@gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Brendan Kenny <bckenny@gmail.com>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>


On Jun 23, 2010, at 11:25 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>  
wrote:

> By the way, I've posed a text-based survey on Facebook, and gotten a
> few fairly consistent answers.
>
> The question is:
> """
> Quick survey for you web-designy people: The syntax for box-shadow is
> x-offset, then y-offset, then blur. Now, if you see "box-shadow: 0px
> 0px 10px gray;", how far out from the box do you expect the blurred
> shadow to extend? 5px? 10px? 20px? A different number dictated by some
> gaussian function?
> """

That seems to be using a much less common example (zero offsets) in  
order to hide half the blur and thus bias the answer towards something  
that does not consider it. 
Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2010 19:20:35 GMT

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