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

On Jul 15, 2010, at 2:10 PM, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Did you get the impression somehow that we were not asking for something that could be measured with pixel perfection?  Saying "run it through a function and see if what comes out matches other specs that also do not define the results" hardly seems seems like an argument in favor of pixel perfect results.
> 
> I don't understand what you're saying here.

I mean that you seem to be arguing against the sort of language we have in the draft, because you want the blurs to be pixel perfect. Yet the part you are objecting to is the part that attempts to have measurable results that match the author's input length, and replace it with something where the only way to measure the result is to compare it to results in other standards (which are similarly vague in their wording).  

I think the most important step towards having pixel perfect results is to first say precisely what the results should be, the most important metric of which is 'how many pixels make up the width of the blur in the final result?".

As far as how smooth the blend is, or how the shades are distributed within that space, I think that's less important, as long as the blend perceptibly fills the space it is supposed to, and is not so heavily weight to one end or the other that it noticeably changes the whole character of the blur. If an implementor wants to improve performance by, say, having 2 identical opacity pixels adjacent to each other in a large blur, rather than having a tenth of a percent of difference between them, I think that would probably be fine, as long as the blur width (or blur extending amount) matched what the author asked for.

Received on Friday, 16 July 2010 00:46:09 UTC