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 18:28:51 -0700
Message-Id: <36F2A3F1-2CD6-47CA-8F0C-B17482C393DD@gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, Brendan Kenny <bckenny@gmail.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 6:14 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>  
wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>> I'd still be interested in knowing if people think that a "10px  
>> transition
>> from 100% opaque to 0% opaque" should be inclusive of a 100% pixel  
>> and/or a
>> 0% pixel within the 10px. I think here on the list we've be viewing  
>> it as
>> exclusive of those endpoints.
>
> I consider it exclusive.  I expect a black shadow on white background
> to not hit #fff or #000 until just *outside* of the blur area.

Me too. So that's two of us. I'd guess it's most of us on this thread  
even. And I'd hope that a more widely cast survey would back that up. 
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2010 01:29:39 GMT

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