Re: [css3-background] blur distance

On Jun 21, 2010, at 2:35 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>  
wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Brian Manthos  
> <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/csswg/css3-background/Overview.src.html.diff?r1=1.233&r2=1.234&f=h
>>
>> Can someone elaborate on the intent of this change?
>
> Presumably to make it clearer that they mean "non-zero".  There's
> sufficient possibility for confusion over whether 0 qualifies as a
> "positive" number that it's often worthwhile to avoid using the term
> "positive" when you mean to exclude zero.
>
> The possibility of negative distances is already ruled out earlier in
> the prose describing the possible values, so it's unambiguous.

By saying "a positive blur distance..." it made it sound as though  
there could, by contrast, be a negative blur distance. When really,  
the only thing we want to contrast it against there is the zero blur  
situation.

Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 00:14:53 UTC