On Feb 12, 2009, at 5:38 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote: > 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. Applying a scale when drawing perhaps? dave
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2009 23:44:49 UTC