- From: Amelia Bellamy-Royds <amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 15:25:12 -0700
- To: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAFDDJ7x8rD3n4HE1nWsa_EAmDzNxud8kvOhnp1CYi0HyASHoiw@mail.gmail.com>
For what it's worth, this seems to be how -webkit-filter is implemented. In other words, -webkit-filter: grayscale() applies 100% grayscale filter (in Chrome anyway, haven't tested Safari). For implementers of the standard property, neither Edge nor Firefox currently support the function without a parameter, so changing the lacuna value would not break anything that isn't already broken. I also agree that it is more useful/logical to have the default function be complete grayscale. ~ABR On 1 February 2016 at 15:02, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote: > Hello, > > The ED of filters says that the lacuna value for the grayscale filter is > zero. > https://drafts.fxtf.org/filters/#FilterProperty > > However: > > - the syntax does not seem to allow the argument to be omitted so how > can the lacuna value be used > - if it did, then 0 is an odd value > > 0 means no change. Thus seems unintuitive. I would expect grayscale() > to be equivalent to grayscale(100%) which is likely what authors would > expect and would be convenient for the most common use case "make this > grayscale". > > Suggested fix: > > - change the grayscale filter syntax to make the argument optional > - change the lacuna value to 1 > > Btw I added some tests for grayscale since there was only one (100%) > so I added 1, 0, 0% and 300% as well. > > -- > Best regards, > Chris Lilley > Technical Director, W3C Interaction Domain > > >
Received on Monday, 1 February 2016 22:25:41 UTC