W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > January to March 2015

Re: Overflow-clipping of filters with fixed-pos/abs-pos descendants

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 10:20:52 +1300
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLaiechpP2X9MrEHHNJeSL=r4FNTEpMCXaUk4PdWYbHw9g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
Cc: "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 10:09 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>

> Conceptually, we avoid clipping the translucency group, and instead push
> all clipping down to its descendants, which allows us to apply different
> clips to different descendants.
> We can't take the same approach for 'filter', for the reasons described at
> the beginning of this thread. Although 'filter' and 'opacity' are
> "essentially the same" in some sense, 'opacity' is an important special
> case because the above approach works.

A better way to explain this is that 'opacity' has the nice property that
it commutes with clipping. I.e., applying opacity to an element E and
clipping the result always gives the same result as clipping element E and
then applying opacity.

In general, 'filter' doesn't have this property. I think 'mix-blend-mode'
currently does, although it wouldn't if we allowed the full set of
Porter-Duff operators.

oIo otoeololo oyooouo otohoaoto oaonoyooonoeo owohooo oioso oaonogoroyo
owoiotoho oao oboroootohoeoro oooro osoiosotoeoro owoiololo oboeo
osouobojoeocoto otooo ojouodogomoeonoto.o oAogoaoiono,o oaonoyooonoeo
osoaoyoso otooo oao oboroootohoeoro oooro osoiosotoeoro,o o‘oRoaocoao,o’o
oaonosowoeoroaoboloeo otooo otohoeo ocooouoroto.o oAonodo oaonoyooonoeo
osoaoyoso,o o‘oYooouo ofooooolo!o’o owoiololo oboeo oiono odoaonogoeoro
otohoeo ofoioroeo ooofo ohoeololo.
Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2015 21:21:20 UTC

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