- From: Jeremie Patonnier <jeremie.patonnier@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 22:17:57 +0200
- To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-fx@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAEi838mRNDGb51n8rbF2ohEYhsFi-FK3bU2GxDAkKPPcToGSXw@mail.gmail.com>
Hi! 2012/5/31 Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> > > >> I found unclear the way each element, inside the knockout group, is >> prioritized to determine which element knock-out which other one. It looks >> like it depend of the z-index of each element but it's not clearly stated. >> It could also be interpreted as dependent of the source code flow. In the >> end I presume it depend of the paint order define by each browser. The >> "knock-out" property definition does not really help much more here. >> > > Correct, it is in paint order. > Ok, so in that case it needs some clarification. The paint order to resolved the knock-out should be specified because if, for whatever reason, a browser has a different paint order than another one this feature will be unreliable for authors. In the same spirit, an author should have a way to specify it's own rendering order for the knock-out. Allowing this through the z-index property will make sens (we are already used to do it when dealing with position and in an way, resolving a knock-out is about performing some positioning). > >> 8.1 : This section make some reference about HTML elements. What about >> SVG ones? >> > > It should be identical. Any SVG element should support the CSS keywords. > Ok good new. It was implicite (and say in each property definition) so maybe it could be a nice enhancement to make it clear ;) > Is it planed to have something about compositing and blending fill and >> stroke independently? >> > > I don't think that that is in the works. Do you believe it is important? > Well... what I believe is : Make it short and extensible. I prefer a short and quickly released spec with a few key properties than a big fat one that cover everything and take ages to be stabilized and implemented (remember CSS2 :P). In terme of functionality, I think it could be a good idea to be able to specified compositing and blending on stroke and fill independently. For example, I can imagine having a filled shape that will be blend with the background and the stroke that will remain unblend. Another example : having a dotted border (build with dash-array for example) that will perform a "clear" composition with the fill as the destination (with clip-to-self enabled) to build some kind of a gear with a single circle shape. In the end, I think it's not a key feature but it gives kick-ass tools to authors to imagine cool effects. So IMO it's a nice-to-have feature, but if it's to difficult to specified it, it's ok to drop it. Best, -- Jeremie ............................. Web : http://jeremie.patonnier.net Twitter : @JeremiePat <http://twitter.com/JeremiePat>
Received on Thursday, 31 May 2012 20:18:47 UTC