- From: Alan Gresley <alan@css-class.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 18:54:49 +1100
- To: Lea Verou <lea@verou.me>, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- CC: Michael Mullany <michael@sencha.com>, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Stefan Craciun <scraciun@adobe.com>
On 29/11/2013 5:35 PM, Lea Verou wrote: > On Nov 29, 2013, at 12:45, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote: >> This might work. My main concern is that it would overload >> mix-blend-mode too much since we're also hoping to repurpose it to >> blend different areas of an element. I'm unsure how we would >> reconcile that. Do you have a suggestion? > > If the syntax for that is what was discussed in the FXTF a while ago, > I don’t see what the conflict would be. Care to elaborate? :) > > ~Lea From what I have gathered from this thread, it not the syntax but rather how do you blur a backdrop if the filter causes isolation (staking context) and how does this blur less as you go outwards from a given element. Take this demo where it animates both opacity and a blur together. Only works in Chrome. http://css-class.com/test/css/3/filter/blur-opacity-cross-fade.htm What would or should happen over a non uniform backdrop (currently just a background colour of black) when we have opacity(0%) and blur(1em)? Chrome itself is not following the spec since when opacity has a value of '1', there should not be a stacking context but if it did not disobeyed the spec, it would animate strange. Anyway, the bug is not present in this demo since the images are absolutely positioned. Alan -- Alan Gresley http://css-3d.org/ http://css-class.com/
Received on Friday, 29 November 2013 07:55:24 UTC