W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > July 2011

Re: [css3-images] Premultiplication switch (was: gradient pre-multiplied interpolation)

From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 12:47:23 -0700
Message-Id: <259435E8-0DCA-48AE-9B9A-3957619870A5@gmail.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
To: Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com>
On Jul 28, 2011, at 3:06 AM, "Leif Arne Storset" <lstorset@opera.com> wrote:

> Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> skreiv Thu, 28 Jul 2011 01:49:14 +0200
> 
>> On Jul 27, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I meant an example usage, but that's good enough for now.
>>> 
>>> I'd rather see the interpolation specified in the gradient specification itself.
>>> 
>>> Doing it as part of the gradient itself would allow for varying the interpolation mode across layers of a background-image specification, whereas doing it as a separate property wouldn't allow that.  Unless of course you want to make color-interpolation a layered property as well...
>> 
>> That strikes me as a very good point. An author who who wants this level of control over whether or not to premultiply might also want to control it on a background layer by background layer basis.
> 
> Then again, if the author knows enough about premultiplication to care, he or she (or the editor) is probably knowledgeable enough to just code everything unpremultiplied. (As I far as I can see premultiplying is only done so authors can use the intuitive "transparent" keyword - it doesn't enable any additional effects.)

Another problem is that if the pre-multiplication switch is per-gradient then you couldn't do an animation or transition between two gradients with that switch set differently, right? But if it is per-element, then you don't have that problem. 
Received on Friday, 29 July 2011 19:48:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:42 GMT