- From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2012 10:48:33 -0800
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAGN7qDBhh2oCG74h=Hcyd6gvV2Ucdz_+_NK0OhjNn8noh-Lztg@mail.gmail.com>
Good point! They are just strings, so we can later define it so you can say: mycontext.globalCompositeOperator = "multiply,source-atop" On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote: > On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote: > > the Compositing and Blending spec has a chapter on adding blending to the > > Canvas 2d context [1]. > > Blending is currently defined by overloading the > 'globalCompositeOperator' > > [2] with additional values. > > > > People have raised this as an issue because CSS split compositing and > > blending into 2 properties and collapsing them for Canvas seems > > inconsistent. > > The main reason for this difference, is that Canvas is built upon Core > > Graphics on the hood and this API set can't implement compositing and > > blending separately. Because of this, splitting the properties can cause > > combinations that are not implementable (ie source-atop + multiply). > > > > > > What do people think? > > Is it more important for the spec to be consistent, or to have a feature > > that can be consistently implemented today? > > I'm fine with the current proposal. In the future, if it becomes more > palatable to mix arbitrary compositing and blending, we can simply > change the attribute to accept up to two keywords, one from the > compositing list and one from the blending list. > > ~TJ >
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2012 18:49:00 UTC