Re: [css3-background]Positioning of box-shadow blurs?

On Apr 29, 2010, at 1:33 PM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>  
wrote:

>> 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.

I'm not reluctant, just looking at one thing at a time. I also think  
the word "grow" can be replaced with something more accurate and  
precise, but I'm not sure what exactly yet. "to be thickened" is more  
the right idea than "to grow", but not all that precise.

Anyway, how about this to replace that last sentence:

If 'border-radius' is zero, then corners should remain sharp (not  
rounded) after spread radius is applied and prior to the application  
of blur radius.


> Minor detail: "should should" -> "should"

Oops.

By the way, fantasai wrote what is in that part of the editors draft  
now (I think), so she may have more to say about the wording too.

Received on Thursday, 29 April 2010 21:42:45 UTC