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

Re: [public-fx] <none>

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 09:43:33 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDCZrZpRoG+czeQEtCLxFt=Wxxfz6zt-6MBpeuneE+tGcw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Cc: alex@abbra.com, public-fx@w3.org
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:
> 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

Oh!  That's quite different from what I thought the draft said last
time I looked at it, where it was referring to alpha.  Makes sense.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2011 17:44:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 November 2011 17:44:31 GMT