On Jul 13, 2010, at 3:31 PM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote: >> "blur radius" had been replaced with "blur value" the revision before that. There was quite a long thread of discussion about this. No one would/could say what circle or ellipse or arc the so-called "radius" was part of, or what made it a radius other than the fact that it was centered on the shadow's edge. > The reason that it was changed from a radius is that Brad thought that it should be described, and defined in terms of its appearance, not in terms of the underlying implementation. I was not the only one to think it should be described in a way that was measurable, testable, and author-predictable, and that the measure should be visually equal (in some way) to the length authored.
Received on Tuesday, 13 July 2010 23:26:12 UTC