Re: [css3-background] vastly different takes on "blur"

On Jun 11, 2010, at 12:16 PM, Brad Kemper wrote:

> 
> On Jun 10, 2010, at 12:15 PM, fantasai wrote:
> 
>> fantasai: I'd like to publish LC of backgrounds&borders.  If we don't
>>           have time ask now, would like scheduled this month.
>> howcome: Is box shadow in?
>> fantasai: yes
>> howcome: let's do it
>> fantasai: 3 weeks last call period
>> <ChrisL> which wgs are invited to review it?
>> RESOLUTION: LC of css3-background, 3 weeks review, ask SVGWG for comments
> 
> I have a concern that came up after we passed this at the end of the call this week. I found that Firefox and Webkit are interpreting the blur value in vastly different ways, neither of which seem to be following the spec. Check out these screen shots of the same shadow with 100px of blur:
> 
> http://www.bradclicks.com/cssplay/blur_100px_webkit.png
> 
> http://www.bradclicks.com/cssplay/blur_100px_firefox.png
> 
> Firefox blurs much more than Safari. Last Call is fine, but I really do not want to see this go to CR with prefixes dropped, unless it is with more standardized behavior. Can we get some assurances from implementors that they will be changing to more closely match the description in the spec about where the blur begins and ends? Or if they are interpreting the spec differently or something?
> 
> Also, can we remove the word "radius" from any sentence that is about blur or spread? I find it confusing and misleading, as it is not at all clear what circle or ellipse it is a radius of. AFAICT, it is no more a radius than are border, padding, margin, outline, outline-offset, etc. properties.

CoreGraphics draws the shadow in the Safari implementation.  We just give it the parameters and let it draw.  At best all we can do is alter the parameters we pass in.  Can you explain what the problem is with Safari's rendering?  If it's not something we can hack by changing the parameters, it's unlikely we'll be able to fix it.

dave

Received on Friday, 11 June 2010 17:57:13 UTC