W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2013

Re: [css-compositing] Request to move Compositing and Blending spec to CR

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 16:29:09 +1300
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLbE7KVfTHEDZy-_4FKq4rv6B8U9scbD-eFDWwzFcrzoOg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Cc: James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:

> No, the spec should not refer to blogs. Also, this is not 'potentially'
> useful as the absence of this description has caused confusion in the past.
>

I agree with James. Having the spec define behavior that is never used by
any Web feature is very confusing.

Section 4 is not really needed at all since the HTML5 canvas spec defines
the canvas compositing behavior. If you want the Compositing and Blending
spec to define new compositing modes for canvas, then define a list of
operators that the HTML canvas spec can refer to, but don't define
globalCompositeOperation here. Don't even mention canvas here.

Another very important reason is also that if this property/behavior is
> included in the spec, the W3C patent policy will apply.
>

Describing something in a W3C spec that is not actually used by any
features in that spec, just so we can get the patent policy to apply to it,
borders on bad faith.

Rob
-- 
Jtehsauts  tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy  Mdaon  yhoaus  eanuttehrotraiitny  eovni
le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o  Whhei csha iids  teoa
stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d  'mYaonu,r  "sGients  uapr,e  tfaokreg iyvoeunr,
'm aotr  atnod  sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t"  uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n?  gBoutt  uIp
waanndt  wyeonut  thoo mken.o w
Received on Friday, 13 December 2013 03:29:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:17 UTC