Re: [public-fx] <none>

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 9:05 AM, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:
> 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

Oh!  That's quite different from what I thought the draft said last
time I looked at it, where it was referring to alpha.  Makes sense.

~TJ

Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2011 17:44:30 UTC