W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: Updated filters specification

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 13:36:56 -0700
Message-ID: <BANLkTimFbCKvqzm6B1CYG9nuBTOgyycRjQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Cc: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>, Dirk Schulze <vbs85@gmx.de>, Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com>, public-fx@w3.org, Anthony Grasso <anthony.grasso@cisra.canon.com.au>
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:

> On Tuesday, April 26, 2011, 4:10:25 AM, Robert wrote:
> ROC> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>
> wrote:
> ROC>
> ROC> What does this mean for existing content that uses
> ROC> 'enable-background'? I doubt there is much of it, but still,
> ROC> there are a couple of existing recommendations that define it.
> ROC> Typically things get deprecated before being removed.
> ROC>
> ROC> That content would only have worked in Opera or possibly some
> ROC> standalone SVG viewer
> Some standalone viewer, like the Adobe one, which one or two people may
> have used.
> The attribute also gets written fairly frequently by SVG exported from
> Adobe Illustrator (current and previous versions) which again, one or two
> people may use to generate content, possibly even putting that content on
> websites.

Yes, but that is in the context of blending, not filters. I didn't realize
that the same keyword was affecting both filters and compositing.

It makes a lot of sense to have the 'enable-background' keyword when you're
applying blend modes.
See this article for an example:
('enable-background' is called 'isolate blending' in Adobe's model.)

Filters should just apply a pixel transform on the SVG/HTML container and
produce a bitmap. This bitmap is then composited with the normal SVG/HTML

So, I think 'enable-background' should be removed from the CSS filters spec
but it should stay in the SVG compositing spec.
If we start working on a CSS blending document, we can decide if the keyword
makes sense in the HTML world.


> ROC> --- i.e., probably not public Web content.
> Your conclusion does not follow from your data.
> ROC> It's up to those vendors to decide whether and when to remove
> ROC> enable-background support, I don't think it matters much for the Web.
> I agree with Dean, this is a deprecation and needs to be signalled as such.
> To be clear, I am not against deprecating the feature. But pretending it
> never existed or treating it like some vendor-prefixed experiment that can
> be withdrawn at will is irresponsible.
Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2011 20:37:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:49:38 UTC