W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: background-blend-mode vs mix-blend-mode

From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 20:27:16 -0700
To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
CC: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>, Sylvain Galineau <galineau@adobe.com>
Message-ID: <008660F9-320F-4C70-86F2-4B8A94F64FF4@adobe.com>

On Apr 10, 2013, at 8:21 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> > the exact same issue will happen if blending applies to elements (in which
> > case stacking contexts are created).
> > For instance, an element with blending that is a child of an element that
> > uses fixed positioning will render differently today in FF and WK.
> >
> > Dropping background-blend-mode will not solve this problem.
> 
> Dropping background-blend-mode simplifies it a lot, because you only
> have to consider elements that form stacking contexts when
> addressing it.
> 
> All,
> 
> I would like to start this thread up again.
> 
> I thought that the problem of what constitutes the backdrop of the stacking context (= mix-blend-mode) or the image (= background-blend-mode) is the same but Sylvain almost convinced me that that is not the case.
> If it's really is too difficult, I would have no issue to change the spec so background images will blend and composite only with each other.

I would have thought that this is what people expect anyway. I support this change. For the other things you have the mix property.

> 
> David, 
> can you explain why you think that background-blend-mode is harder to specify (or implement)?
> 
> see also: http://dbaron.org/log/20130306-compositing-blending

Greetings,
Dirk
Received on Thursday, 11 April 2013 03:27:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:49:45 UTC