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

Re: Merging CSS Shaders proposal into Filter Effects

From: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 15:01:15 -0700
Cc: Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com>, 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: <B68D64BF-0BE8-4841-A686-05C92DE5A4C2@apple.com>
To: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>

On Oct 31, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Dean Jackson wrote:

> 
> 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.

But then should we add a media query to see if feCustom is supported or not, so authors can implement a fallback?

And I will reiterate my extreme distaste for the term "feCustom". It should be "feShader".

-----
~Chris
cmarrin@apple.com
Received on Monday, 31 October 2011 22:02:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 31 October 2011 22:02:27 GMT