Re: [compositing-1] please move non-separable effects to Level 2

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
>
>