W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > January to March 2013

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

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 21:10:44 -0800
Message-ID: <CAGN7qDDib+Lrc3sVanc19=NfLL8ny+99mX=c7VgH-N-VxxDTYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Cc: Lea Verou <lea@w3.org>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
Thanks Dirk and Lea!

I updated the spec per your recommendations.
Is that syntax defined somewhere so I don't have to look at other CSS specs
to figure this out?

Rik

On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:

>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Dec 30, 2012, at 1:20 AM, "Lea Verou" <lea@w3.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Rik,
>
> Looks good to me.
>
> One minor thing, I think <blendarea> = [<area>] <blendmode> should become:
>
> <blendarea> = [<area>]? && <blendmode>
>
> so that any order is permitted.
>
> Btw, you can use the # combinator to avoid repetition,
> i.e. <blendarea>[, <blendarea>]* would become [<blendarea>]#.
>
>
> The brackets can be omitted as well on single items.
>
> Dirk
>
>
> Lea Verou
> W3C developer relations
> http://w3.org/people/all#leahttp://lea.verou.me ✿ @leaverou
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 30, 2012, at 07:19, Rik Cabanier wrote:
>
> Hi Lea,
>
> I updated the spec. It still needs to be cleaned up a bit, but I believe
> that it reflects the latest proposal.
> Can you take a look?
>
> Rik
>
> On Tue, 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.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 1 January 2013 05:11:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 1 January 2013 05:11:12 GMT