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: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 18:20:56 -0700
Cc: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com>, Brendan Kenny <bckenny@gmail.com>, Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <7A8D5796-E528-47AF-9D50-50B24D81394D@me.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
On Jun 23, 2010, at 6:14 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

> 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.

The shadow is a Gaussian blur. Gaussian functions never hit zero, so in theory the shadow has infinite extent; in practice, implementations do cutoffs for efficiency, and each may choose a different cutoff. I don't think arguing over the specifics of which pixel is the last affected pixel is productive. (Note that if we defined shadows in terms of SVG filters, we wouldn't have to have this discussion.)

We do need to agree on whether a non-offset, non-spread shadow extends by the blur amount or half the blur amount, but I don't think we have to pixel-precise on what "extends" means.

Received on Thursday, 24 June 2010 01:21:34 UTC

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