W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-wg@w3.org > July to September 2012

RE: SVG 2 rendering model

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 11:06:53 -0700
To: "'Tab Atkins Jr.'" <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, Nikos Andronikos <nikos.andronikos@cisra.canon.com.au>, "public-svg-wg@w3.org" <public-svg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <83F37C1A4497B54589EAEDC750D03A9473B7E6A1@nambx09.corp.adobe.com>
I assume you're talking about z-index? 

The generic description of the compositing spec is written so that there are no sudden jump in content when you add opacity.
The CSS portion calls out stacking contexts as groups. Compositing and blending is calculated after stacking contexts are established. At that point, they should follow the rules from the generic description.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 10:59 AM
> To: Rik Cabanier
> Cc: Leonard Rosenthol; Nikos Andronikos; public-svg-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: SVG 2 rendering model
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@adobe.com>
> wrote:
> >> For SVG, I think that having a non-0 or 1 value of opacity on a group
> >> would very clearly force it into isolated.
> > This will give unexpected results since adding a <g> with 99.99999%
> > opacity might render very different than with 100% opacity
> Note that this is already true in CSS.  It's sometimes a good thing!
> ~TJ
Received on Friday, 3 August 2012 18:07:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:20:15 UTC