- From: Benjamin Denckla <bdenckla@alum.mit.edu>
- Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 10:17:55 -0800
- To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Cc: "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAG7dtv+A4H=1cbBRrV6Z6_5jrLJ2HxB0Jh6E_2KU0dH28086KQ@mail.gmail.com>
Thanks Dirk, for your response. Indeed "bitonal" was a poor word choice. I'm now using "inkscale" instead. See http://dencklatronic.blogspot.com/2014/10/more-on-bitonal-inkscale-images.html .. Indeed inkscale could be described as a gradient map with two color stops. Perhaps Greenblatt could provide an example use of gradientmap.js using the CSS currentColor variable? If that is possible, that could be used to implement transparent inkscale. Opaque inkscale would require the background equivalent of currentColor, which, oddly, does not seem to exist. Even if all that could be done, I do not feel inkscale should require Javascript, in the long run. For one thing, this would prevent it from being used in the most popular ebook format: Kindle. Javascript is not allowed in Kindle books, nor would I expect Amazon to allow it anytime soon. For another, admittedly more vague thing, it feels like Javascript should be used only as an "escape hatch" if you're doing something weird or interactive. Inkscale is certainly not interactive. As to whether it is weird, that is of course subjective. But I wonder if there is an analogy with transparency. What if web standards were missing transparency, and someone proposed a way to implement it in Javascript? That would be a great workaround until the new standard was propagated to a reasonable percentage of the installed base. But ultimately we would want to see transparency available without Javascript. Ben
Received on Tuesday, 4 November 2014 18:32:40 UTC