On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote: > On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote: > >> No, the spec should not refer to blogs. Also, this is not 'potentially' >> useful as the absence of this description has caused confusion in the past. >> > > I agree with James. Having the spec define behavior that is never used by > any Web feature is very confusing. > > Section 4 is not really needed at all since the HTML5 canvas spec defines > the canvas compositing behavior. > Can you point where that is defined in the canvas spec? > If you want the Compositing and Blending spec to define new compositing > modes for canvas, then define a list of operators that the HTML canvas spec > can refer to, but don't define globalCompositeOperation here. Don't even > mention canvas here. > It's needed because the canvas spec doesn't say anything about how compositing should happen. I don't want to break canvas by removing this. This was discussed on the mailing lists a year ago and there were no objections at that point. > > Another very important reason is also that if this property/behavior is >> included in the spec, the W3C patent policy will apply. >> > > Describing something in a W3C spec that is not actually used by any > features in that spec, just so we can get the patent policy to apply to it, > borders on bad faith. > It *is* being used. Also, future spec might want to refer to this. Another example is the proposal for masking in canvas which has an option for clip-to-self. It would be unfortunate that we would have to rev the compositing spec to progress canvas or filters.
Received on Friday, 13 December 2013 03:51:16 UTC