- From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 02:12:21 +1200
- To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Cc: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2013 14:12:52 UTC
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 2:01 AM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote: > On Apr 18, 2013, at 6:31 AM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> > wrote: > > Maybe you misunderstood me. I don't want to guarantee that the Gecko > test results won't change in the future. We need to be able to change > grouping to adjust our optimizations. > > To make this specification successful, we need to agree on some rules > about grouping. Which means that these features may severely constrain browser optimizations in the future. And that means we have to consider whether it's worth having the features as currently designed. Maybe we could make progress if we introduced a CSS property that forces its element to be a group and stacking context, *and* forces all its children to be groups and stacking contexts, and then we say that blending/compositing only works on those children, and that only the siblings of a blended-composited element can be part of the background that we blend/composite into. Rob -- q“qIqfq qyqoquq qlqoqvqeq qtqhqoqsqeq qwqhqoq qlqoqvqeq qyqoquq,q qwqhqaqtq qcqrqeqdqiqtq qiqsq qtqhqaqtq qtqoq qyqoquq?q qEqvqeqnq qsqiqnqnqeqrqsq qlqoqvqeq qtqhqoqsqeq qwqhqoq qlqoqvqeq qtqhqeqmq.q qAqnqdq qiqfq qyqoquq qdqoq qgqoqoqdq qtqoq qtqhqoqsqeq qwqhqoq qaqrqeq qgqoqoqdq qtqoq qyqoquq,q qwqhqaqtq qcqrqeqdqiqtq qiqsq qtqhqaqtq qtqoq qyqoquq?q qEqvqeqnq qsqiqnqnqeqrqsq qdqoq qtqhqaqtq.q"
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2013 14:12:52 UTC