Re: Merging CSS Shaders proposal into Filter Effects

On Oct 31, 2011, at 3:01 PM, Chris Marrin wrote:

> 
> 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?

>> Isn't this a generic need? I mean, we may want to know if feature X is implemented and have a fallback if not. Or are you thinking of knowing if the feature is implemented in hw or not, so that the author can have a fallback based on assumed performance?

> 
> And I will reiterate my extreme distaste for the term "feCustom". It should be "feShader".

>> I don't have a strong feeling either way. I added an issue for both the issues you raised on Bugzilla, since Dean just created the repository for filters.

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14639
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=14641

Thanks,
Vincent