- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 17:18:12 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.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." <jackalmage@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. Then you should just use spread, with no blur. It makes the shadow get bigger. The blur value is for making it blurrier.
Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 00:19:05 UTC