W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > October to December 2013

Re: [css-compositing] Request to move Compositing and Blending spec to CR

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 18:24:14 +1300
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLaC9tfMuSFVy8iOfbkHSRY8UrHYpduo4AmQCzs+Moj7rQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Cc: James Robinson <jamesr@google.com>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 4:13 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> No, the spec should not refer to blogs. Also, this is not 'potentially'
>>> useful as the absence of this description has caused confusion in the past.
>> I agree with James. Having the spec define behavior that is never used by
>> any Web feature is very confusing.
>> Section 4 is not really needed at all since the HTML5 canvas spec defines
>> the canvas compositing behavior.
> Can you point where that is defined in the canvas spec?


>> If you want the Compositing and Blending spec to define new compositing
>> modes for canvas, then define a list of operators that the HTML canvas spec
>> can refer to, but don't define globalCompositeOperation here. Don't even
>> mention canvas here.
> It's needed because the canvas spec doesn't say anything about how
> compositing should happen.
> I don't want to break canvas by removing this.

All you need to define for canvas is the per-pixel compositing behavior.

> Another very important reason is also that if this property/behavior is
>>> included in the spec, the W3C patent policy will apply.
>> Describing something in a W3C spec that is not actually used by any
>> features in that spec, just so we can get the patent policy to apply to it,
>> borders on bad faith.
> It *is* being used.

Where? Pointing to "clip to self" saying "don't do this" does not
constitute a use.

> Also, future spec might want to refer to this. Another example is the
> proposal for masking in canvas which has an option for clip-to-self. It
> would be unfortunate that we would have to rev the compositing spec to
> progress canvas or filters.

If a future spec will use it, the future spec can define it. Any use of
clip-to-self will have to define what the clip-to-self region is for each
drawing operation, which is not necessarily easy to do. It certainly
shouldn't be done by saying the clip-to-self region is where alpha > 0, for
the reasons James pointed out near the beginning of this thread.

Jtehsauts  tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy  Mdaon  yhoaus  eanuttehrotraiitny  eovni
le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o  Whhei csha iids  teoa
stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d  'mYaonu,r  "sGients  uapr,e  tfaokreg iyvoeunr,
'm aotr  atnod  sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t"  uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n?  gBoutt  uIp
waanndt  wyeonut  thoo mken.o w
Received on Friday, 13 December 2013 05:24:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:49:47 UTC