- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 09:43:33 -0800
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: alex@abbra.com, public-fx@w3.org
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