- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 17:36:54 -0700
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@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 Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. What? This doesn't even make sense. Why would I want to use spread when I'm interested in blurring a shadow? I didn't say I'm using blur *to make the shadow bigger*. I said that all I care about when blurring is how much bigger the shadow gets. I just don't care how far the blurring effect extends *into* the shadow, is all, so long as it looks pretty. I honestly was not aware before this conversation that the inner part of the blur was supposed to be the same width as the outer part, *because it's never been important to me*. I expect it to continue to be unimportant. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 00:37:56 UTC