- From: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:24:45 -0800
- To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>, public-fx@w3.org
On Nov 18, 2011, at 9:46 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > 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. I definitely think we should drop comp-op, if for no other reason than the fact that it is hard to say :-) I'm a fan of using full words (alpha-compositing rather than alpha-comp) unless properties start looking like run-on sentences. And I like the idea of color-compositing just because it makes it easier to relate to alpha-compositing. The thing about "blending" is that it can refer to both alpha-blending and color-blending. So I don't think it's a discriminating term. Since this is a Compositing spec, it seems like keeping that word in the properties is appropriate. But of course, whatever consensus comes up with works for me... ----- ~Chris cmarrin@apple.com
Received on Friday, 18 November 2011 19:25:22 UTC