- From: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:33:44 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Brendan Kenny <bckenny@gmail.com>, 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 21, 2010, at 2:31 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 2:05 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The size of the blur when you provide a distance measurement for blur can >> not be irrelevant. It is the primary reason and use case for having blur on >> a shadow! > > What I mean is that the amount which the blur extends inward really > doesn't matter to me. What's most important when I'm blurring a > shadow is how big the shadow becomes. > > >>> I care about how large the shadow >>> becomes post-blur, and so to me having the length indicate the >>> distance the blur extends outward from the shadow is most sensical. >> >> If you care about how far it extends, you can still figure that out easily >> (divide by two), if you are worried about it overlapping something, for >> instance. But for simplicity it should still be a total blur amount >> specified when specifying blur. > > That's not a strong argument. I could make an identical "simplicity" > argument for having the length be the amount it extends outwards and > inwards, because then the meaning of the length is similar to the > meaning of the spread length. After all, if you care about the total > size of the blurring effect, you can just multiply by two. > > >>> Having the blur length match the spread length thematically is an >>> added bonus - both lengths act similarly and thus are easier to use. >> >> Far from it. It just adds confusion to what is being measured, when it can >> be pretty obvious, based on the extent of the visual effect. > > I've explained why I feel the opposite. To me, the relevant length to > measure is the amount the blur extends out from the original shadow, > same as spread. The fact that the blur also affects the inside of the > shadow is just a detail - I could care less how far it does so, so > long as it looks pretty. > > It certainly doesn't *add* any confusion, though. In both cases, the > length will be measuring how much the effect makes the shadow grow > from the base. (I'm not saying that your idea isn't coherent in this > respect either, just defending my own claim.) I'm with Tab here. And since two browsers already implement it this way, I see no reason to change it. Simon
Received on Monday, 21 June 2010 21:34:29 UTC