On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote: > On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> > wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> However, could we achieve what we want by simply having each pixel > >> inherit the highest alpha value of any pixel within X of it, with X > >> depending on the spread? Negative spreads would inherit the lowest > >> alpha instead. > > > > > > Maybe. It's totally unclear to me what "spread" means in this situation, > so > > it's not clear what authors would want or expect. > > Well, I don't have a browser on hand right now that implements the > spread value on box-shadow, so I can't be certain, but what I > described above *appears* to be what's intended by the spec text. Firefox 3.1 nightly builds implement 'spread'. What you describe is equivalent to what 'spread' means today for rectangular boxes, assuming you use Manhattan distances to compute "within X". But if you have, say, a border of repeating diamond-shaped tiles, I don't really know what authors would want if they use 'spread' with that. But your definition is probably as good as any. Rob -- "He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah 53:5-6]
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2009 23:39:00 UTC