W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > June 2010

Re: [css3-background] vastly different takes on "blur"

From: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 12:13:50 -0700
Message-id: <5B1B3BE5-7EF0-4AD6-879A-6A493EA40F57@me.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
On Jun 22, 2010, at 11:55 AM, Brad Kemper wrote:

>> The point is, it it not reasonable to ignore the biggest existing usage of people that do use offsets and do perhaps want to actually see some of their shadow color at the opacity they specified  But we should pretend instead that the blur value does not have a measurable visible effect and is mainly just for growing the shadow?  That is not reasonable. The main purpose of spread is to grow the shadow and the main purpose of blur is to blur the shadow. Spread frees designers from having to hack blur for it's secondary effect, so they can grow the shadow without having to make it blurrier.

But doesn't PhotoShop's behavior negate this argument?

Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 19:14:29 UTC

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