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

RE: Filters spec: CSS vs SVG

From: David Dailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 20:57:48 -0400
To: "'Jeff Schiller'" <codedread@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Rik Cabanier'" <cabanier@gmail.com>, "'Erik Dahlstrom'" <ed@opera.com>, <public-fx@w3.org>, "'www-svg'" <www-svg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002601cc0abf$744bfcb0$5ce3f610$@net>
Thanks Jeff! I suppose I can relax now!





From: Jeff Schiller [mailto:codedread@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 8:42 PM
To: David Dailey
Cc: Rik Cabanier; Erik Dahlstrom; public-fx@w3.org; www-svg
Subject: Re: Filters spec: CSS vs SVG




As far as I understand, this is a new spec for styling HTML/CSS with quick
filter effects using CSS.  This is not removing SVG Filters.


Think about it like SVG gradients vs. CSS gradients.  Or SVG transforms vs
CSS3 transforms.



On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 5:28 PM, David Dailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net>

I'm confused. Apparently I'm not subscribed to all the relevant lists as the
proposal to gut filters functionality appears first to have been made known
in this particular email. 


Again, I am confused. Is it that people are really seriously proposing to
gut all existing functionality from filters chaining?


Is there a process by which formal objections might be filed if so? 


It sounds like a remarkably bad set of proposals if this is what people are
actually discussing!


Not only would it break existing content (that some people argue doesn't
matter anyhow, being only ten years' worth) but it breaks what one can do!


Surely Rik's summary must be overstated, as so backwards a set of steps
would seem to be remarkably backward!  


What am I missing here?






From: www-svg-request@w3.org [mailto:www-svg-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
Rik Cabanier
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 5:30 PM
To: Erik Dahlstrom
Cc: public-fx@w3.org; www-svg
Subject: Re: Filters spec: CSS vs SVG


Thank Erik!

I didn't know that this was a replacement for the current spec.


So far, I think these are the following proposed changes:

- remove section 6, the filter effects region

- remove backgound-image and background-alpha

- remove section on the enable-background keyword

- change default behavior of an unknown filter to 'ignore' instead of the
'null filter'

- remove filters that create an image and move them to the image-values spec
(ie feTurbulence)

- remove the feComposite filter and replace with the CSS/SVG compositing



On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 4:41 AM, Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com> wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2011 20:30:05 +0200, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:


in yesterday's meeting is sounded that the CSS Filter spec is going to
affect the regular (non-CSS) SVG filter spec as well.
Did I understand this correctly?


It's "Filter Effects 1.0", and the spec can be found here:


As agreed in earlier discussions in the taskforce we're making one spec. It
includes both SVG and CSS definitions.


If so and we remove/change filters or features from the filters proposal, is
someone going to update the SVG filters?


No, the Filter Effects 1.0 spec replaces the SVG Filters 1.2 spec.


I was under the impression that we were going to leave SVG filters (and
compositing) alone and define a new simpler proposal that would only apply
to CSS styled HTML and SVG content.


We are defining a simpler syntax for filter effects, however I'm not
convinced it's a good idea to ignore SVG Filters which are widely
implemented at this stage, and considering that diverging from that
potentially makes it harder to reuse existing code.

The general idea so far has been: use svg <filter> markup for the more
complex filter effects, use css shorthands for simple filter effects.

Erik Dahlstrom, Core Technology Developer, Opera Software
Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
Personal blog: http://my.opera.com/macdev_ed


Received on Thursday, 5 May 2011 00:58:17 UTC

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