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

Re: [css-compositing] blending in canvas

From: Nikos Andronikos <nikos.andronikos@cisra.canon.com.au>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:24:51 +1100
Message-ID: <50A587D3.4030008@cisra.canon.com.au>
To: <public-fx@w3.org>
Hey guys,

On 16/11/2012 10:47 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I like option 4, actually.  The existing blending/compositing
>>> properties have pretty long names (and the names use inconsistent
>>> conjugation, which is a bug that should be fixed).
>> Is the the -ing of alpha-compositing vs blend-mode?
>> If so, I will fix the spec.
> Yes.  We generally avoid gerunds in our property names.  Don't know if
> I want to bikeshed, but what about alpha-blend-mode and
> color-blend-mode? Or, if we add a 'mix' shorthand, 'mix-alpha' and
> 'mix-color'?
>
>

alpha-blend-mode doesn't correctly describe what is happening imo.
Although the alpha makes a difference, the operator selects which
regions contribute - including areas which don't overlap, which is why I
don't think blend is accurate.

My suggestions would be:
composite-mode
composite-operator
comp-op
alpha-composite

or if we go with mix, then:
mix-operator
mix-comp-op

Is abbreviation to be avoided?

- Nikos
The information contained in this email message and any attachments may be confidential and may also be the subject to legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, interference with, disclosure or copying of this material is unauthorised and prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately advise the sender by return email and delete the information from your system.
Received on Friday, 16 November 2012 00:25:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 16 November 2012 00:25:23 GMT