W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: [css-compositing] some proposals

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:46:01 -0800
Message-ID: <CAGN7qDAqv6CJMNH3LJKKJD2B-sy5Q06gThB6_FbxGBSUA-SuPQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>
Cc: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>, public-fx@w3.org
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com> wrote:

> On Nov 17, 2011, at 9:10 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote:
> Last week I sent out some ideas to update the SVG composting spec:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGCompositing/.
> Some people suggested some improvements which I integrated.
> Here is the updated list of proposals:
> a. split up the spec in 2 sections: Porter-Duff & Blending.
> Porter-Duff are compositing primitives that describes how 2 images
> (src+dst) can be merged.
> Porter-Duff will continue to use the existing comp-op property.
> Can I suggest that we refer to these as alpha compositing and color
> compositing? I think it would make it more clear what we're talking about
> (at least for me :-) And given that, I think the better names for the
> properties are: 'alpha-compositing' and 'color-compositing'.
I agree.
Do you think the 'comp-op' should be renamed to 'alpha-comp' to make it
more clear that we're talking about alpha compositing?
I would prefer to keep the 'blending' keyword since people are already
familiar with that term.

Received on Friday, 18 November 2011 17:46:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:49:39 UTC