W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-wg@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: review comments on interact-pointer-04-f.svg

From: Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 08:39:53 +0200
To: public-svg-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.vk9wspa0geuyw5@localhost>
On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 06:07:59 +0200, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>  
wrote:

> Erik Dahlstrom:
>> I took the liberty of adding some more subtests there, one showing
>> an empty mask element, and one where the opacity has been moved to a
>> g element inside the mask.
>
> OK, cool.  For those two cases, I think it’s clearer in the spec that
> they will cause pixels not to be painted.

Right. I added them for completeness and comparison only.

I think opacity on mask is a specialcase. It's a container element sure,  
but it's special in that it never renders directly to the canvas[1], so  
one could argue that since the mask is never rendered directly the opacity  
shouldn't apply to the mask element[2][3].

Btw shouldn't [2] be saying "How container elements are rendered" instead  
of "How groups are rendered"?

Cheers
/Erik

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/masking.html#MaskElementHeightAttribute  
(see paragraph just below here... also id's for each paragraph would be  
nice to have)
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/render.html#Grouping
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/render.html#ClippingMaskingObjectOpacity

-- 
Erik Dahlstrom, Core Technology Developer, Opera Software
Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
Personal blog: http://my.opera.com/macdev_ed
Received on Thursday, 28 October 2010 06:40:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 28 October 2010 06:40:40 GMT