- From: Sebastian Zartner via GitHub <noreply@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2026 13:43:31 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I just realized that there's a possible ambiguity in my proposed syntax. A value of `0` as first value could either be interpreted as the first blur radius or the angle of the progressive blur. Though the [definition of `<angle>` values has this note](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-values-4/#angles:~:text=For%20legacy%20reasons%2C%20some%20uses%20of%20%3Cangle%3E%20allow%20a%20bare%200): > Note: For legacy reasons, some uses of `<angle>` allow a bare `0` to mean `0deg`. This is not true in general, however, and will not occur in future uses of the `<angle>` type. So we should be fine here and it should be interpreted as `<length>` value in that case. Also note that the alignment with the `linear-gradient()` syntax means that a single blur value is allowed. I.e. `linear-blur(10px)` would be valid and be equivalent to `blur(10px)`. ----- I imagine implementations might need to approximate the rendering by splitting the blurs into several steps instead of doing a fully smooth transition. @grorg @chrishtr As implementers and editors of the spec, maybe you have some input on this idea, especially on feasibility. Sebastian -- GitHub Notification of comment by SebastianZ Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/13285#issuecomment-3705351315 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 2 January 2026 13:43:32 UTC