W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: [filters] Custom filter functions proposal

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 08:53:14 -0800
Message-Id: <C82DE745-3F4C-4D9D-A7F0-A618E02AB38E@gmail.com>
Cc: Lea Verou <leaverou@gmail.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
To: Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com>

On Feb 24, 2012, at 6:56 PM, Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com> wrote:

> [vh] For using the filters, I actually prefer naming the parameters as in the CSS shaders proposal than having anonymous arguments, especially for custom filters. So I would prefer to have to write:
> 
> filter: old-wave(phase 90, amplitude 10);
> 
> than:
> 
> filter: old-wave(90, 10);
> 
> I realize this is different than the predefined filters notation but I think code would be more legible this way, easier to maintain and less error prone. 

I think this is a great idea for filters.
Received on Monday, 27 February 2012 16:53:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 February 2012 16:53:49 GMT