Re: [css3-background] Where we are with Blur value discussion

On Wednesday 2010-07-14 02:06 +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
> David is just arguing to prefer re-use over re-invention. If there is
> some well-known mechanism, and that mechanism is described using well-
> known terms, then it is preferable to use that mechanism and describe
> it in those terms, over coming up with new, unproven mechanisms and
> terms, unless that is shown to be necessary. He is not arguing to de-
> fine something by saying "Do this like Photoshop does that", or "Do
> this as if you were using Cairo and called function X and then Y.".
> At least as I understand him, there is no reason to expect readers of
> the specification will have difficulty predicting the dimensions of
> the shadow knowing the radius parameter and the specification but not
> some particular graphics library, due to following the advice above.

Yes, that's what I was trying to say.

See, for example, , which
uses the term "radius" as the characteristic of a blur twice, but
doesn't use the term "distance" as the characteristic of a blur
(though it does use "distance" in other contexts).  That article
doesn't, however, explain how the radius relates to the σ of the
Gaussian function.

(I'm not saying "radius" is the only term already in use.
describes blurs in terms of the standard deviation of the Gaussian


L. David Baron                       
Mozilla Corporation             

Received on Wednesday, 14 July 2010 00:24:53 UTC