- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 17:12:30 -0700
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Dennis Amrouche <dennis@screenlabor.de>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, SimonFraser <smfr@me.com>, Brendan Kenny <bckenny@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > If you have a picture of what it is supposed to look like, with > the predicted values rendered, then you could more easily make an initial > visual comparison. Sure, there's nothing *wrong* with making an extra picture and doing pixel comparisons that way. It's just not necessary for the actual conformance testing. > But the approximation would fail your test, because you're comparing each > pixel's value against the value of an actual gaussian distribution. Firefox > would fail, because it has noticeable banding, whereas an actual gaussian > distribution presumably wouldn't. I think you might be confused - Firefox passes my suggested conformance criteria just fine (if we pretend that it treats the blur length properly). It is, at worst, 6 color units away from a true gaussian, which is within the 5% boundary. The conformance criteria is that each pixel must be within some percentage of a true gaussian. Banding like you see in Firefox near the edges is perfectly acceptable as long as it remains within the specified percentage of the reference value. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 28 July 2010 00:13:22 UTC