W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: Utility of background-composite and background-blend-mode?

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 20:47:15 -0800
Message-ID: <CAGN7qDAOYyeqFYoRjOrAQ7EyJJ697E6E1ZEP2PJT3_ebmMfdtw@mail.gmail.com>
To: robert@ocallahan.org
Cc: public-fx@w3.org
On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 8:28 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote:
>>> What are the use-cases for 'background-composite'? It seems like a very
>>> specialized feature whose effect can be achieved pretty easily by just
>>> using more elements or (in some cases) pseudo-elements.
>> I agree it's pretty specialized. We've seen people use it to make small
>> animations. ie https://github.com/simurai/lab/tree/gh-pages/icons
>> It's fairly simple to implement so I added it to the spec.
> There's still a cost. I would like other browser vendors to chime in with
> opinions on whether they think this is worth having.

I would be happy postponing 'background-composite' until the next level of
the spec. The reason is that it will be hard (if not impossible for certain
UA's) to implement concurrently with 'background-blend-mode' which is more
useful and easier to grasp for authors.
Received on Monday, 4 March 2013 04:47:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:49:44 UTC