- From: Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
- Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 01:32:41 +0000
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
- CC: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "Prabs Chawla" <pchawla@microsoft.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
How's this for a test case?
"If you see pink/red, you fail."
<html>
<head>
<style>
body {
background-color:white;
padding:50px;
}
div {
box-shadow:0px 0px 4px 10px rgba(255,0,0,0.1);
-moz-box-shadow:0px 0px 4px 10px rgba(255,0,0,0.1);
height:100px;
width:300px;
}
span
{
background-color:white;
box-shadow:0px 0px 0px 12px yellow;
-moz-box-shadow:0px 0px 0px 12px yellow;
display:block;
height:100px;
margin-top:-100px;
width:300px;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<span></span>
</body>
</html>
Tab Atkins:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>
> wrote:
> > Testability question.
> >
> > As we converge on the final language, can we make sure that it expresses
> where -- regardless of specifics of blur algorithm -- a test harness could check
> for fully transparent or fully opaque pixels?
> >
> > What I mean is that there should be a no-man's-land beyond the edge of
> the specified blur region where no blurred pixels should be found.
> >
> >
> > My impression is that the intentional flexibility in the specification is (a)
> about how the blur ramps up / down -- linear, exponential, etc. -- and the
> impact of neighboring pixels and (b) NOT about allowing the blur to bleed off
> to infinity or to shrink to barely perceptible.
>
> Correct. Defining the outer edges of the blur is precisely what this thread is
> about. We want to be able to specify that precisely, even if we don't specify
> what happens inside those boundaries.
Received on Saturday, 12 June 2010 01:33:20 UTC