- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 18:28:51 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@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 Jun 23, 2010, at 6:14 PM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> 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. Me too. So that's two of us. I'd guess it's most of us on this thread even. And I'd hope that a more widely cast survey would back that up.
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2010 01:29:39 UTC