W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2010

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

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 14:03:11 -0700
Message-Id: <4A891B2B-F730-4F45-9D87-2DF539419661@gmail.com>
To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>

On Jun 11, 2010, at 11:13 AM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote:

> I don't think the current definition, which describes the blur in  
> terms of a gradient, is good for shapes with concave portions.

I don't know why not. It doesn't say it's a gradient, it just defines  
the size of the region to blur within. I think that saying that a 15px  
blur covers a perimeter that is 15px wide will be a whole lot more  
understandable and predictable and meaningful for authors than to ask  
them to guess how much that will be based on the results of plugging  
that length into a guassian function. 
Received on Friday, 11 June 2010 21:04:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:07:47 UTC