On Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 5:50:46 PM, Tab wrote: TAJ> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote: >> On Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 5:10:34 PM, Tab wrote: >> TAJ> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 4:13 AM, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, November 22, 2011, 2:55:50 AM, alex wrote: >>>>> What about shape-mode/blend-mode which is another possibility. >>>> I like those two names. shape-mode is appropriate,and keeping the name blend-mode is good as it is already understood and named like that in various graphical authoring applications. >>> I don't understand 'shape-mode'. This is about alpha, not shapes, right? >> Perhaps I snipped too much of alex's mail (in which he explains how this is about shape, not alpha) when replying. TAJ> No, I read the email. The only "shape", though, is the theoretical TAJ> 4-area square, which is only used for explanatory purposes. That's TAJ> not a "shape" as the word is normally understood, particular in SVG, TAJ> where "shape" more commonly refers to geometry. Shape does refer to geometry, and shape cannels are different from alpha channels. This email is a good starting point: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2011Apr/0039.html -- Chris Lilley Technical Director, Interaction Domain W3C Graphics Activity Lead, Fonts Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG Member, CSS, WebFonts, SVG Working GroupsReceived on Tuesday, 22 November 2011 17:05:50 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:49:39 UTC