Re: Updated to the blending and compositing spec (was: minutes, December 10 2012, FXTF telcon)

Hi Lea,

I updated the spec. It still needs to be cleaned up a bit, but I believe
that it reflects the latest proposal.
Can you take a look?

Rik

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Lea Verou <lea@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 12, 2012, at 00:40, Rik Cabanier wrote:
>>
>> Hi Lea,
>>
>> thanks for the clarification!
>>
>> I don't particularly like that this forces you to always specify what
>> part of the element you want to blend.
>> Most likely, 99% of blending will just target the element and now those
>> users will have to write either 2 css properties or put 'element' in the
>> shorthand.
>>
>>
>> It doesn’t :) `element` would just be the initial value for
>> `mix-blend-area`, just like `normal` is for `mix-blend-mode`. I guess I
>> should’ve mentioned that, but I assumed it was obvious. Mea culpa. :)
>>
>
> Ah! That makes sense.
>
>
>>
>>
>> How about we drop the '-area' property and assume in the shorthand that
>> no area means that that blend should apply to the whole element?
>> So your case becomes:
>>
>> mix-blend: screen, multiply box-shadow, multiply text-shadow;
>>
>>
>> Sounds like what I’m saying, without the longhands. The benefit of having
>> the longhands is potential shorter code when you want the same blending
>> mode to apply to multiple areas (check my example) and individual setting
>> of the two components (area and blending mode), both of which are
>> relatively rare I guess. The downside is more properties. No strong
>> opinions here...
>>
>
> Yes, I don't think that it's very common to have the same blend mode on
> all the elements.
> I believe that we're in agreement here and will update the spec
> accordingly unless someone voices an objection.
>
> Rik
>
>