W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > January to March 2011

Re: Filter Templates

From: Antony Kennedy <antony@silversquid.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 00:22:06 +0000
Cc: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@adobe.com>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B96C4930-CA49-4C6B-A64A-C6BF1592FB64@silversquid.com>
To: robert@ocallahan.org
I concur that it is the authors that need simple syntax. Rendering and GPU engines can cope with complexity by abstracting it away.

On 6 Feb 2011, at 23:56, Robert O'Callahan wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@adobe.com> wrote:
> I never heard back on my proposal.
> Is it because itís too limited or doesnít rely on SVG?
> I believe the CSS filters need to be very simple so
> -          They can be accelerated on the GPU
> -          The can be implemented by browsers that choose not to implement SVG filters.
> I don't think those are reasons to make CSS filters simple. I don't think any significant browser is going to refuse to implement SVG filters indefinitely. And it is not necessary to keep CSS filters simple for them to be GPU-accelerated. Blurred shadows are already relatively difficult to implement on the GPU.
> Individual CSS filters should be simple so that authors find them easy to use. I suspect authors will find it difficult to remember how to use a function with nine parameters, as you have proposed.
> Rob
> -- 
> "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." [Acts 17:11]

Received on Monday, 7 February 2011 00:23:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:49:37 UTC