On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote: > > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 5:28 AM, "Rik Cabanier" <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 8:15 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> On Sep 18, 2013, at 4:33 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: >> >> Blurring of the backdrop is not quite the same as a CSS image. >> You typically only want to blur where you're actually painting. For >> instance, if you draw large text or an SVG graphic, you only want to blur >> where the pixels of the text or graphic are drawn. >> >> I guess you could pull in the backdrop as a rectangular region of a >> certain size, but seems too primitive for CSS. >> >> >> The backdrop is whatever is behind the element, right? That can change, >> due to scrolling, resizing, dragging, animating, etc., and you'd want the >> blurring to continue to blur whatever is behind it. >> > > Yes, since this is all declarative, the effect should look correct if the > content or its backdrop change. (Just like it should with blending) > > > Exactly that was my intention with 'backdrop'. It always references what > is behind the element. (And that might change by transforming elements or > scrolling.) The effect is of course limited to the background size and > position of the element. This gets you exactly the possibility to blur or > blend the areas that are exactly behind your element. I don't think this is > to primitive though. > So, is the area of the backdrop that is filtered rectangular, or is it the shape of the content you draw? SVG's backgroundimage primitive will pull in a rectangular area so if you want it to just affect the content, you'd have to calculate the coverage of the element and use that as a mask/clip
Received on Thursday, 19 September 2013 04:26:05 UTC