- From: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2011 15:01:15 -0700
- To: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>
- Cc: Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com>, Patrick Dengler <patd@microsoft.com>, Dirk Schulze <vbs85@gmx.de>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
On Oct 31, 2011, at 11:11 AM, Dean Jackson wrote: > > On 31/10/2011, at 10:30 AM, Vincent Hardy wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I would prefer to keep the specs. together, because CSS shaders are the proposed custom filter solution for Filter Effects and naturally belong there. >> >> Tab: you mention that more things than the shading language are contentious. Can you explain what these contentious issues are? >> >> Are you referring to the issues raised on the mailing list: >> >> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/fx/wiki/Custom_Filters#Issues_List >> >> or something else? >> >> The CSS shaders proposal responds to the feCustom 'question' in the 'Filter Effects' specification and it seems more natural to integrate it than keep it a separate specification. > > This is a good point. feCustom has been in the Filters draft since its earlier drafts. CSS Shaders is the proposal to accomplish this. But then should we add a media query to see if feCustom is supported or not, so authors can implement a fallback? And I will reiterate my extreme distaste for the term "feCustom". It should be "feShader". ----- ~Chris cmarrin@apple.com
Received on Monday, 31 October 2011 22:02:26 UTC