- From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 20:33:04 +0000
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- CC: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Alex Meiburg <timeroot.alex@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
> How about this: > > # The third length is a blur radius. Negative values are not allowed. The > blurring region should be an area the width of this value, running along and > centered on the edge of the shadow shape (a shape that otherwise mimics > the shape of the border box, including any border-radius, absent the > application of spread radius). The shadow should should transition from > the shadow color on the inner edge of this region, to transparent at the > outer edge of this region. If the blur radius is 0, the shadow has a sharp > edge, otherwise the larger the value, the more the edge of the shadow is > blurred. The exact algorithm is not specified. > > #The fourth length is a spread radius. Positive values cause the shadow > to grow in all directions by the specified radius. Negative values cause > the shadow to shrink. The shadow should not change shape when a > spread radius is applied: sharp corners should remain sharp ***prior to the > application of blur radius***. Definitely better. The addition of the word edge near the word sharp helps address the collision I was concerned with. I'm still bothered by this phrase "should not change shape", in the same way Sylvain is. But it seems there's reluctance to remove it even though some of us find it at best confusing and distracting. Minor detail: "should should" -> "should"
Received on Thursday, 29 April 2010 21:39:11 UTC