W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: [filter-effects] New syntax proposal for 'custom' filter function

From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:55:49 -0800
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
Message-ID: <12768534-33B7-4318-AF10-4E5CFFC33236@adobe.com>

On Nov 15, 2012, at 3:42 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 2012, at 2:43 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Throughout your examples you've used strings, not idents.  I agree
>>> with IDENT, but I want to make sure that you actually meant that.
>> 
>> I want to follow CSS Animations and Font-face here, and looked at CSS Animations WD. But sadly the WD used IDENT, which was corrected in the ED. I will correct it as well.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your response.  I like the use of IDENT, but
> your example look like this:
> 
> @custom-shader "foo" {
>  format: "glsl";
>  ...
> }
> .bar { filter: custom("foo"); }
> 
> when they should instead look like this:
> 
> @custom-shader foo {
>  format: glsl;
>  ...
> }
> .bar { filter: custom(foo); }
> 
> I was just trying to verify that the latter is indeed what you want (I
> hope it is).

Just checked, animations use IDENT :P. I definitely don't want a different syntax for custom() then for animation-name/@keyframes. So yes, IDENT is fine for me (no quotes).

Greetings,
Dirk


> 
> ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2012 23:56:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 15 November 2012 23:56:14 GMT