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

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:

>
> 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.
>

OK, but then we just shift the problem to the mix property, ie

mix-blend-mode: background multiply;



>
> >
> > 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