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

Re: [public-fx] <none>

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 18:05:24 +0100
Message-ID: <953250343.20111122180524@w3.org>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: alex@abbra.com, public-fx@w3.org
On Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 5:50:46 PM, Tab wrote:

TAJ> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 5:10:34 PM, Tab wrote:
>> TAJ> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:13 AM, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 2:55:50 AM, alex wrote:
>>>>> What about shape-mode/blend-mode which is another possibility.
>>>> I like those two names. shape-mode is appropriate,and keeping the name blend-mode is good as it is already understood and named like that in various graphical authoring applications.
>>> I don't understand 'shape-mode'.  This is about alpha, not shapes, right?

>> Perhaps I snipped too much of alex's mail (in which he explains how this is about shape, not alpha) when replying.

TAJ> No, I read the email.  The only "shape", though, is the theoretical
TAJ> 4-area square, which is only used for explanatory purposes.  That's
TAJ> not a "shape" as the word is normally understood, particular in SVG,
TAJ> where "shape" more commonly refers to geometry.

Shape does refer to geometry, and shape cannels are different from alpha channels.

This email is a good starting point:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2011Apr/0039.html


-- 
 Chris Lilley   Technical Director, Interaction Domain                 
 W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead
 Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG
 Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working Groups
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2011 17:05:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 November 2011 17:05:51 GMT