W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: Merging CSS Shaders proposal into Filter Effects

From: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 11:11:29 -0700
Cc: Patrick Dengler <patd@microsoft.com>, Dirk Schulze <vbs85@gmx.de>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
Message-id: <236F548E-2793-4203-977A-02376FA530EA@apple.com>
To: Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com>

On 31/10/2011, at 10:30 AM, Vincent Hardy wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I would prefer to keep the specs. together, because CSS shaders are the proposed custom filter solution for Filter Effects and naturally belong there.
> 
> Tab: you mention that more things than the shading language are contentious. Can you explain what these contentious issues are?
> 
> Are you referring to the issues raised on the mailing list:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/fx/wiki/Custom_Filters#Issues_List
> 
> or something else? 
> 
> The CSS shaders proposal responds to the feCustom 'question' in the 'Filter Effects' specification and it seems more natural to integrate it than keep it a separate specification.

This is a good point. feCustom has been in the Filters draft since its earlier drafts. CSS Shaders is the proposal to accomplish this.

Dean

> 
> Vincent
> 
> From: Patrick Dengler <patd@microsoft.com>
> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 09:46:34 -0700
> To: Dirk Schulze <vbs85@gmx.de>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> Cc: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
> Subject: RE: Merging CSS Shaders proposal into Filter Effects
> 
>> I agree as well.  We need to keep these separate.
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dirk Schulze [mailto:vbs85@gmx.de]
>> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 12:50 AM
>> To: Tab Atkins Jr.
>> Cc: Dean Jackson; public-fx@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Merging CSS Shaders proposal into Filter Effects
>> 
>> I agree to Tab Atkins. I think both specifications should continue in parallel and Filter Effects 1.0 just references to CSS Shader. But there are still some parts of the CSS Shader spec that should be moved to Filter Effects like chapter 4 and first paragraph of chapter 5.
>> 
>> Dirk
>> 
>> Am 31.10.2011 um 01:48 schrieb Tab Atkins Jr.:
>> 
>>> On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com> wrote:
>>>> On 30/10/2011, at 5:19 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The publication of the first draft of Filter Effects is underway and expected in the next few weeks.
>>>>>> I propose that the CSS Shaders proposal from Adobe, Apple and Opera be merged into the Editor's Draft of the Filters spec. This won't be part of the first officially published draft.
>>>>>> Does anyone have strong objections to this? I expect one contentious part of the spec is the choice of shading language, but I think that's been called out.
>>>>> I object to this.  Shaders is way more contentious than just that
>>>>> issue, and I'd prefer not to slow down Filters (which are generally
>>>>> okay) by pulling in something with serious security concerns still.
>>>>> (Note: I love Shaders and want them to proceed.)
>>>> Would you be ok with two versions of the spec? One with and one without shaders. We don't have a well-known versioning identifier like "CSS3", but I guess this could be a 1.0 and 2.0.
>>> That just seems vulnerable to things drifting out of sync.  It's also
>>> bizarre to work on a level 2 simultaneously with level 1 when they're
>>> both at the same maturity level.
>>>> The alternative would be a separate specification completely, but this is a little weird because it's using the same property.
>>> I don't think that's particularly weird.  The Image Values spec
>>> defines new types of values for a handful of properties.  Shaders is a
>>> pretty unique and large type of value, and can survive being defined
>>> in its own spec.  It would be like having Gradients be their own spec,
>>> which would be perfectly appropriate (it just happened that we had a
>>> good spec with very little else in it that could take it).
>>> ~TJ
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 31 October 2011 18:13:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 31 October 2011 18:13:52 GMT