On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com> wrote: > > On 18 Apr 2014, at 4:23 pm, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> > wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On 18 Apr 2014, at 3:47 pm, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> >> wrote: >> >> Is that the point of this thread? >> >> >> I think the point of this thread is was my request to defer particular >> blend modes to level 2. >> >> Is there anyone objecting to this? >> > > I object on the grounds that the justifications presented so far seem > inadequate to me. > > > So you’re objecting to a subset of features being removed that you haven’t > shipped, have not announced any plans to support, > Actually, we've been working with mozilla to get blending supported. See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=952643 It is working really well using software compositing (including the overflow:hidden problem). We have plans to add it to their compositor which should improve performance but we haven't had the resources. > and where the company who are the main driving force behind the > specification, with years of experience in this area and lots of user > feedback, have just revealed are not even popular (and not supported > through their entire product line)? > Well, I said we never bothered to add them for CMYK (except in Photoshop). All our applications support them for RGB workflows. I do believe that they are more popular in pixel applications (such as photoshop, after effects and premiere) but less so for vector applications (such as Illustrator and Photoshop) > I wonder why standards take so long? I think that last point alone is > enough justification. > > Can you explain what use cases you need them for? > > Dean > >Received on Saturday, 19 April 2014 03:13:08 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:49:49 UTC