- From: Jeremie Patonnier <jeremie.patonnier@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 23:49:46 +0100
- To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAEi838=tak5gp8eZDUiX8YO1-Wgg6gP0K1pzT4Lzg8rqqEmckQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi, As an author (who's not really aware of compositing and blending subtleties), I wish you to avoid 2 and 3. 2 is a change in a well known API... it will be confusing and will require again to have polyfills to deal with implementation inconsistency, please, spare us that. 3 is a bit the same... we will have to learn two different way of doing the same thing, please, things are hard enough :) That said, I don't have any opinion between 1 and 4 Except that Canvas is out there where CSS B&C is not, so... maybe it worth having CSS to follow Canvas. My 2ct Jeremie 2012/11/15 Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> > Maciej still objects because he feels that this is a substantial > difference between CSS and Canvas. > > I think we have a couple of choices: > 1. Keep globalCompositeOperator for blending and compositing but collapses the > 2 CSS properties into one that takes the same arguments as > globalCompositeOperator > 2. Keep the 2 CSS properties but split the Canvas properties into > globalCompositeOperator and globalBlendOperator > 3. Don't change anything and live with them being different. > 4. Don't change anything but also define a new CSS shorthand that combines > blending and compositing. Canvas is compatible with this shorthand. > > I'm unsure what approach we should take. > option 2 has the issue that we can't implement this correctly in the near > term. > option 1 has the issue that transitionable blending will be more confusing > in the future. > option 4 should cover all concerns but introduces yet another keyword. > > Any comments? > > Rik > > On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > Good point! >> > >> > They are just strings, so we can later define it so you can say: >> > mycontext.globalCompositeOperator = "multiply,source-atop" >> >> I'd use a space-separated pair, but otherwise, yes. ^_^ >> >> ~TJ >> > > -- Jeremie ............................. Web : http://jeremie.patonnier.net Twitter : @JeremiePat <http://twitter.com/JeremiePat>
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2012 22:50:34 UTC