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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 18:14:47 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTinLV-m174Tp0kUnDXSiA3KBJ7fUORGiHN80XYhy@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Cc: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, Brendan Kenny <bckenny@gmail.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd still be interested in knowing if people think that a "10px transition
> from 100% opaque to 0% opaque" should be inclusive of a 100% pixel and/or a
> 0% pixel within the 10px. I think here on the list we've be viewing it as
> exclusive of those endpoints.

I consider it exclusive.  I expect a black shadow on white background
to not hit #fff or #000 until just *outside* of the blur area.

Received on Thursday, 24 June 2010 01:15:39 UTC

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