Re: [css3] support for filters

On 06/01/2011, at 11:31 AM, Cameron McCormack wrote:

> Rik Cabanier:
>> Thanks for the info!
>> 
>> Having the filter defined externally to the CSS by using 'url(#..)' will make it harder to use. Is there a proposal to make it part of css?
>> Animated filter are very useful ie it's very common to use a blur filter to simulate motion.
> 
> I think it is worth looking into having shorthand filters specified just
> in the property itself, like you have with blur(5) below.  If you wanted
> to support all of what SVG filters currently supports, by writing
> something in a single property, it’s going to get somewhat complicated,
> though.  I don’t know how far we want to take it.

Yeah, it could get ugly defining a filter graph in a property. It would probably end up looking like lisp code - you'll be lost in the parentheses. Also, it's not exactly straightforward to write complex filter chains anyway. In many cases a set of built-in effects will be what developers want.

> 
> An advantage of allowing filter definitions in the filter property, as
> you have done, is that CSS Transitions can define what it means to
> interpolate between two values.

Exactly.

Dean

>  If we only have url() values, then it’s
> just going to be a discrete change, and you would need to have the
> transition/animation targetting the <feGaussianBlur> element itself.
> And that would mean that if you want to have multiple elements having an
> animated blur, you would need separate instances of the whole <filter>
> so that they could separately animated their blur radius attributes.
> 
> -- 
> Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
> 

Received on Thursday, 6 January 2011 01:44:36 UTC