- From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 08:53:40 -0800
- To: Fabrice Robinet <cmg473@motorola.com>
- Cc: public-fx@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAGN7qDBE7hc6jbPL14cgNFkZ+Bat_B93TJyoQPr3UkgD4GtGEw@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks for your feedback! Let us know if you find any other problems in the spec. Rik Cabanier Adobe Systems, Inc On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Fabrice Robinet <cmg473@motorola.com> wrote: > Hi Rik, > > Ah.. yes of course :)... > I was thinking about having a built-in "timeElapsed" uniform specifically > for CSS shaders but indeed, > that looks to not fit well the model and not necessary. > > Thanks for your quick answer, > Fabrice. > > On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Fabrice, >> >> I'm not sure what you are asking. Filters are similar to other properties >> such as opacity in that they don't happen over time (They apply in 0 time). >> The filters spec states that you can use CSS animations and transition to >> interpolate them over time. >> Alternatively, you can change a filter in script. >> >> Does this answer your question? >> >> Rik >> Adobe Systems, Inc >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 12:23 PM, Fabrice Robinet <cmg473@motorola.com>wrote: >> >>> Hi group, >>> >>> I did not find in the spec a uniform to represent time. >>> While having time to perform variations on any fx is useful, >>> I was wondering if that omission in purpose to discourage people to do >>> fx that would require update each frame. >>> >>> Should I file an issue ? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Fabrice. >>> >> >> >
Received on Saturday, 10 March 2012 16:54:08 UTC