Re: [css compositing]

Hi Tav,

I updated the abstract to clarify what the spec is defining.
Could you take a look and let me know what you think?

Thanks again!


On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Tavmjong Bah <tavmjong@free.fr> wrote:

> On Sat, 2013-10-19 at 14:12 -0700, Rik Cabanier wrote:
> > Hi Tav,
> >
> >
> > only section 2 and 3 are normative.
> > The rest of the document describes what compositing and blending is in
> > general terms.
> >
> >
> > What makes you think it's meant to apply to SVG?
>
> In the abstract it says:
>
> "Previous versions of SVG used Simple Alpha Compositing. In this model,
> each element is rendered into its own buffer and is then merged with its
> backdrop using the Porter Duff source-over operator. This specification
> will define a new compositing model that expands upon the Simple Alpha
> Compositing model by offering:
>
>   * additional Porter Duff compositing operators;"
>
> I read this as to say that this specification will expand the previous
> version of SVG (i.e. 1.1) to include additional compositing operators.
> This abstract makes no sense if SVG is not getting the new compositing
> operators. Why mention SVG at all? The SVG Compositing Specification
> which is the origin of this specification did include the 'comp-op'
> property.
>
> Tav
>
>
> > On Sat, Oct 19, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Tavmjong Bah <tavmjong@free.fr>
> > wrote:
> >
> >         I am a bit confused when reading the spec. As I read it, the
> >         whole
> >         discussion of Porter Duff Compositing Operators is irrelevant
> >         for SVG,
> >         only applying to Canvas. Is this correct? The Abstract would
> >         lead one to
> >         think otherwise.
> >
> >         Also, would it be usefule for the feComposite filter to
> >         include all the
> >         Porter Duff compositing operators?
> >
> >
> > Apart from 'clear' (which could be done through other means), it seems
> > like you can implement all PD operators with filters. Which one do you
> > think is missing?
>
>
>