Re: [compositing] isolation property should be renamed

I would argue it is the best time to change this name, as the feature has
not yet gained popularity.

The blend- prefix Erik suggested sounds great to me, and it solves the
issue of stomping on generic CSS keywords that could affect other specs.

On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 4:53 AM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:

>
> On Dec 4, 2014, at 12:39 PM, Erik Dahlström <ed@opera.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 03:54:19 +0100, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Elliott Sprehn <esprehn@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> If all the isolation property does is create a stacking context [1][2]
> >>> then it seems like it should be called stacking-context: true to reveal
> >>> it's purpose,
> >>>
> >>
> >> Its purpose is not to create stacking context. It's designed to limit
> the
> >> backdrop for its children with blending.
> >> The fact that the spec says to do this using a stacking context, is for
> >> implementors; not authors.
> >>
> >> As Erik Dahlström noted, this property also applies to SVG which has no
> >> stacking contexts. [1]
> >>
> >>
> >>> otherwise we're just going to have blog posts about the "secret css
> hacks"
> >>> to create stacking contexts using isolation: isolate as stacking
> contexts
> >>> have all kinds of other side effects.
> >>>
> >>
> >> How would this be different from "will-change: transform;"?
> >> That creates a stacking context with the same side effects.
> >>
> >>
> >>> The property also does not seem to be specific to blending, and the
> >>> isolation naming is confusing given that there's talk of layout/style
> >>> isolation, bidi isolation, and now blend isolation.
> >>>
> >>
> >> It's meant to be used with blending and filters but as with many other
> >> properties, it has side effects.
> >>
> >> The next level of the spec will also reintroduce support for
> non-isolated
> >> blending. Since this is expensive, authors will be able to opt into this
> >> with this same property. Non-isolated blending will not introduce a
> >> stacking context.
> >>
> >> I agree that the name is somewhat confusing. We (= mailing list + css
> >> group) went over different options a couple of years ago and this was
> the
> >> one that we eventually settled on.
> >>
> >> 1:
> >>
> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msg/blink-dev/WoLwgoPB-GE/LITzZ2ifVVsJ
> >
> > Was having a 'blend-' prefix ever discussed (as in: blend-isolation)? I
> couldn't find any mentions of it when searching through the w3 mailinglists.
> >
> > Would 'blend-isolation' be an acceptable new name?
>
> ‘isolation' will likely isolate for compositing as well. Compositing is
> not part of level 1 but will be added into future specs eventually. This is
> one reason why we decided to have the mix- prefix for blending.
>
> I agree with Rik here that the purpose of 'isolation' is not related to
> having a stacking context. It may cause the creation of a stacking context
> just like filter, transform, opacity and many other properties may do.
>
> As a note: We have two more implementations beside Blink which support the
> ‘isolation’ property. One (Safari/WebKit) is shipping with it in a release
> version already and another (Firefox) is about to ship in the stable branch
> soon. IMO this is the worst timing to change names or even functionality.
>
> Greetings,
> Dirk
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Erik Dahlstrom, Web Technology Developer, Opera Software
> > Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
> >
>
>