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

Re: Updated to the blending and compositing spec (was: minutes, December 10 2012, FXTF telcon)

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 15:34:03 -0800
Message-ID: <CAGN7qDDvBWiAH+OpjHD+k7HuL+t=VXbJm0CD3VYTY2_jQSzcnQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lea Verou <lea@w3.org>
Cc: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, public-fx@w3.org
On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Lea Verou <lea@w3.org> wrote:

> On Dec 12, 2012, at 00:40, Rik Cabanier wrote:
> Hi Lea,
> thanks for the clarification!
> I don't particularly like that this forces you to always specify what part
> of the element you want to blend.
> Most likely, 99% of blending will just target the element and now those
> users will have to write either 2 css properties or put 'element' in the
> shorthand.
> It doesn’t :) `element` would just be the initial value for
> `mix-blend-area`, just like `normal` is for `mix-blend-mode`. I guess I
> should’ve mentioned that, but I assumed it was obvious. Mea culpa. :)

Ah! That makes sense.

> How about we drop the '-area' property and assume in the shorthand that no
> area means that that blend should apply to the whole element?
> So your case becomes:
> mix-blend: screen, multiply box-shadow, multiply text-shadow;
> Sounds like what I’m saying, without the longhands. The benefit of having
> the longhands is potential shorter code when you want the same blending
> mode to apply to multiple areas (check my example) and individual setting
> of the two components (area and blending mode), both of which are
> relatively rare I guess. The downside is more properties. No strong
> opinions here...

Yes, I don't think that it's very common to have the same blend mode on all
the elements.
I believe that we're in agreement here and will update the spec accordingly
unless someone voices an objection.

Received on Tuesday, 11 December 2012 23:34:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 22 June 2015 03:33:48 UTC