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

On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:

>
> On Dec 11, 2012, at 3:34 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> This wouldn't make it possible to blend at least multiple background
> images, right? This would be an interesting use case IMO (e.g water mark
> with a logo).


I agree that it would be very useful (and probably easy to implement).
However, I think that one should be in backgrounds and borders with a
reference to the blending spec.

Rik


> >
> >
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > Rik
> >
>
>