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

On Jun 22, 2010, at 1:42 PM, Brad Kemper wrote:

> On Jun 22, 2010, at 12:07 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <> wrote:
>> What we're all saying is that, when we're thinking about how much to
>> blur, what we mentally care about is how much the blur extends out
>> from the normal shadow.  The amount that the blur extends into the
>> normal shadow isn't relevant to our decision on how much to blur.
> That's the part that still seems indefensible. Whatever direction it extends, it is part of the blur for which the author provided a distance measure. How can that possibly be irrelevant to the blur value provided? If all you cared about was how far it how far it extended (and I know ghats nit the case), you wouldn't need blur. So when you say you are visually picking an attractive blur in conjunction with that decision, then you are just visually and concurrently picking a blurriness that can be represented by a number, regardless of which way it extends.

There are two another reasons to keep the definition of the blur amount that you disagree with.

1. We already have text-shadow, whose blur behavior we do not want to change.

2. In the public-fx group, we will be discussion the addition of filters to CSS, with convenience properties for common filters. Blur will be one of these, and it will have a radius, as input, which should give behavior comparable to box/text-shadow's blur radius. This filter will be based on SVG's gaussian blur, and so the behavior of the radius parameter should match SVG.


Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2010 20:55:49 UTC