W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > October to December 2014

Re: [filter-effects] proposal: currentColor in feColorMatrix

From: Benjamin Denckla <bdenckla@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 10:17:55 -0800
Message-ID: <CAG7dtv+A4H=1cbBRrV6Z6_5jrLJ2HxB0Jh6E_2KU0dH28086KQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Cc: "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:49:52 UTC