- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 14:02:37 -0700
- To: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- CC: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 06/22/2010 01:52 PM, Brian Manthos wrote:
> Group A: The spec is fine.
> Group B: Change the spec to half/double the meaning of one of the fields of a property.
>
> A isn't conceding to B.
> B isn't conceding to A.
>
>> From: Simon Fraser [mailto:smfr@me.com]
>> Now can we just move on?
>
> It doesn't sound like there's closure, much less consensus, to me so that seems premature.
At least we're clear on what the two options are. If this is the
only complaint about the current definition, then I think we've
made a lot of progress on this feature! As for whether the blur
value should match definition A or definition B, we've got two
options:
1. Push the issue to the CSSWG and get a decision there
2. Have Brad draw up some diagrams showing both interpretations
for an offset shadow and a glow and post the question to
css3.info / w3.org/bog/CSS / twitter as a survey.
~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 21:03:15 UTC