- From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2010 13:21:17 -0700
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
On Tuesday 2010-07-13 07:15 -0700, Brad Kemper wrote: > Arguments in favor of the distance measuring the Entire blur region width (current spec language): > > 1) The entire perimeter is blurred, outer and inner, not just > outer, so it is logical that the width of the entire blur effect > width should match the authored value. However, for 'text-shadow' the value is called the "blur radius", not the "blur diameter" (and has been called "blur radius" since http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-CSS2-19980512/text.html#text-shadow-props ). (I'm not sure when the definition of 'box-shadow' changed from using the commonly-used term "blur radius" to using the new term "blur distance".) I'd also note that blurring is implemented as a generic transformation of images; it's not just something applied to edges. In that form, I think measuring in terms of the radius (approximating the concept of how far away from its original location can the color of a point can get) makes more sense than using the diameter (approximating the distance between the two farthest points in opposite directions that the color of a pixel can reach). So I also favor switching the definition of box-shadow to match text-shadow and to describe a blur radius rather than a diameter. -David -- L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2010 20:21:53 UTC