- From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 21:10:44 -0800
- To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Cc: Lea Verou <lea@w3.org>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAGN7qDDib+Lrc3sVanc19=NfLL8ny+99mX=c7VgH-N-VxxDTYw@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks Dirk and Lea! I updated the spec per your recommendations. Is that syntax defined somewhere so I don't have to look at other CSS specs to figure this out? Rik On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote: > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Dec 30, 2012, at 1:20 AM, "Lea Verou" <lea@w3.org> wrote: > > Hi Rik, > > Looks good to me. > > One minor thing, I think <blendarea> = [<area>] <blendmode> should become: > > <blendarea> = [<area>]? && <blendmode> > > so that any order is permitted. > > Btw, you can use the # combinator to avoid repetition, > i.e. <blendarea>[, <blendarea>]* would become [<blendarea>]#. > > > The brackets can be omitted as well on single items. > > Dirk > > > Lea Verou > W3C developer relations > http://w3.org/people/all#lea ✿ http://lea.verou.me ✿ @leaverou > > > > > > > On Dec 30, 2012, at 07:19, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > 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 >> >> > >
Received on Tuesday, 1 January 2013 05:11:12 UTC