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: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 12:05:08 -0700
Cc: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <DC98FD9C-8A18-4FA3-BDCC-EE87EF788548@gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>

On Jun 12, 2010, at 11:03 AM, fantasai wrote:

> Ok, I've updated the spec text:
>  http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-background/#the-box-shadow
>  http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/csswg/css3-background/Overview.src.html.diff?r1=1.230&r2=1.231&f=h
> Let me know if this is better.

Yes, the last paragraph you added looks very good to me. 

I still think the word radius and radii should be removed, except when talking about border-radius, but instead it seems to be there even more. The way we are defining it, it is not a direct input of the Gaussian blur (Dave Benning seemed hopeful that it could be mathified into such an input, to give the results [or perhaps close approximation?] of the last paragraph added). and it does not seem to be the radius of any other circle... was this a regression of your earlier text where you had mostly removed that term?

I also start losing track of where the sentence is going in the part about positive and negative number, absolute values, etc. Maybe that part would be better broken into bullet points for more clarity. A negative spread on an outer shadow has the same sort of effect on the shape as a positive spread on an inner shadow, and vice versa, but I didn't really get that sense while reading this. 

When you say "a positive blur [radius]", it sort of implies that there could be a negative blur. So I think "a non-zero blur amount" would be better there.
Received on Saturday, 12 June 2010 19:05:45 UTC

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