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

Re: [css-shaders] CSS shaders for custom filters (ACTION-3072)

From: Gregg Tavares (wrk) <gman@google.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 10:19:04 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKZ+BNpc8vHspHUTsxvGYR2s-KC0dW5vZwWPLypyBYojM37+yA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>
Cc: robert@ocallahan.org, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>, www-style@w3.org
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com> wrote:

>
> On Oct 5, 2011, at 9:27 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com> wrote:
> > We do that by reverse mapping the mouse positions from global into local
> coordinates. That's easy with a single (or composite) transform. It's
> impossible for pixels that are altered by a vertex or fragment shader. You'd
> essentially have to run the shaders backwards to get them to tell you where
> a given point is in the local coordinate space. I know of no hardware that
> can do that. I haven't seen it anyway...
> >
> > I think we can give up on having event handling account for the geometric
> effects of fragment shaders. We should encourage authors to change geometry
> using vertex shaders instead.
> >
> > In principle, we can have event handling account for the effects of a
> vertex shader. Once you've computed the transformed mesh, you can figure out
> which point on the transformed mesh is topmost under the event position, and
> map that point back to the pre-transform mesh.
>
> But imagine an author who wants to use a very dense mesh to get smooth
> curves to closely match the curve effect you can get from a fragment shader.
> Mapping mouse positions with such a mesh would require thousands of matrix
> operations, including inverse which is very expensive. Especially on mobile
> hardware, this would be too expensive to be practical.
>

> When native apps need to do this sort of thing they often will construct a
> second, simpler set of geometry which animates along with the finer mesh and
> is used for things like picking and collision detection. We could do
> something like that, but it would probably be hard to come up with the right
> heuristics. And it would still require running the shader in software, which
> would be quite a big impediment to many implementations.
>

It seems to me if you can't click the results then this proposal shouldn't
be implemented as specified. All the CSS to date has been about styling the
content, not moving it such that's it's no longer interactive.  Offset and
displace are there soley to do things like drop shadows or pseudo 3d text.

The CSS shader proposal breaks all that. If all it was doing was allowing
you to generate 2d filters (pixel shaders only?) then it might make sense
because its uses would mostly be limited to effects current CSS provides
just with more flexibility.

The current CSS shader proposal is taking CSS in an entirely new direction
and it arguably breaks everything CSS was designed for. To me that requires
either solving the problems or limiting its functionality so as not to break
things. If all you want is non-interactive 2d content warped into 3d and
then re-flattened into 2d then just use WebGL


On a different topic,

If you are concerned about perf then arguably it should up to the UA to
decide how much to subdivide the mesh, not the author.




>
> >
> > This would be difficult to implement unless you can run the vertex shader
> on the CPU (or you do some hairy CUDA/OpenCL implementation). However, there
> is another very good reason to be able to run the vertex shader outside the
> rendering pipeline: automatic calculation of filter bounds, so we can get
> rid of that horrible filter-margin stuff. Vincent says that the meshes used
> in the Adobe demos are usually not very large, so this may be feasible. (And
> automatically lowering the mesh resolution if necessary is also feasible.)
> >
> > This may mean that we should choose a different, simpler language for
> vertex shaders than full WebGL vertex shaders.
>
> I think it would be a huge mistake to blaze the trail here. Designing a
> shading language is not trivial and WebGL has done a lot of work on security
> with the current shader model. I don't think we should try to tackle all
> that.
>
> I think for now it would be best to not deal with the picking issue and to
> hang on to filter-margin to deal with bounds issues.
>
> -----
> ~Chris
> cmarrin@apple.com
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 6 October 2011 17:19:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:45 GMT