W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2012

Re: [css4-images] element() behavior

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 00:12:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGN7qDDiN6Z6FvCDMW4wdUsozifuNMkbA7CZT_Ds6hEHCdbiVw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: robert@ocallahan.org, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> As written today, filters from ancestors are honored.  It may be
> >> better to change this, and ignore filters from ancestors, just like we
> >> ignore transforms from ancestors.
> >
> > I think it's essential that all effects on ancestors (e.g. transforms,
> > clipping, opacity, filters, masking) be ignored. Having some effects and
> not
> > others be applied would be confusing and also very difficult to
> implement.
>
> Okay.  Do we have a good definition of "effects", or is it just
> something we have to decide case-by-case?
>
>
I've been looking for one for the CSS compositing spec too.

Rik
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2012 07:13:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:58 GMT