Re: [css-shapes] shape-image-threshold should be clearer about >= vs >

On 9/11/13 8:03 PM, "Brad Kemper" <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sep 11, 2013, at 8:43 AM, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> The intended behavior is for the 0.0 initial value to enclose all of the
>> pixels that are not fully transparent. I want that to be the behavior of
>> the initial value, and I don't think picking an arbitrary amount of
>> decimals for a 0.0001 initial value is a good idea.
>
>Wouldn't 0.5 be a better default? Especially since when manually editing
>alpha masks it is easy to accidentally end up with a few stray pixels
>that are not fully transparent, against a field of other pixels that are.

Is it likely those stray pixels would be under a 0.5 threshold? I don't
create alpha masks every day, but I'd expect stray pixels in the scenario
you describe to be 100% opaque. I still believe that > 0.0 is the correct
initial value.

Thanks,

Alan

Received on Wednesday, 11 September 2013 21:24:14 UTC