W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > January 2013

Re: [whatwg] Canvas: compositing and blending operator as enumeration?

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 08:10:59 -0800
Message-ID: <CAGN7qDBHMDkBZVkG7tcdKmKp1XNh93zo0k0kR6o5ivWBWskzxA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Cc: WHATWG List <whatwg@whatwg.org>
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Jan 9, 2013, at 9:29 PM, "Rik Cabanier" <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Dirk,
>
> the 'globalCompositeOperation' property takes the same syntax as the css
> 'mix' so I don't think an enum will work.
>
>
> I am not following. What does the CSS property have to do with the canvas
> attribute?
>
>
See the spec:
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/FXTF/rawfile/tip/compositing/index.html#canvascompositingandblending
For consistency, people wanted the same syntax for canvas and css.


>
> Rik
>
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> After all the discussions about winding rules and the new introduced
>> enumeration for "nonzero" and "even odd", I wonder if the the compositing
>> and blending modes should be two enumerations as well.
>>
>> enum CanvasCompositingMode {
>>         "source-over",
>>         "source-in",
>>         
>> }
>>
>> and
>>
>> enum CanvasBlendingMode {
>>         "normal",
>>         "multiply",
>>         ...
>> }
>>
>> This wouldn't actually change the behavior or definition a lot, but might
>> help to cleanup a bit. I am happy about other names if they are not good
>> enough.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Dirk
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2013 16:11:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2013 18:48:12 GMT