- From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 20:47:15 -0800
- To: robert@ocallahan.org
- Cc: public-fx@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAGN7qDAOYyeqFYoRjOrAQ7EyJJ697E6E1ZEP2PJT3_ebmMfdtw@mail.gmail.com>
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