W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > July to September 2016

Re: [css-transforms] CSS3D breaks with opacity flattening

From: Amelia Bellamy-Royds <amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 09:14:31 -0600
Message-ID: <CAFDDJ7w7xvcaqxRYGTH2BBzp=3W_-hrngnHKQ0LKbEoLcs3R7Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Cc: Nexii Malthus <nexiim@gmail.com>, Matt Woodrow <mwoodrow@mozilla.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "/#!/JoePea" <trusktr@gmail.com>, Chris Harrelson <chrishtr@google.com>, Simon Fraser <simon.fraser@apple.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>

On 19 September 2016 at 08:58, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:
> That doesn't sound very useful because it means that each painting
> operation will alpha blend/interact with what came before.
> I can't think of a scenario where you'd want that. Can you provide an
> example?
Only the examples previously given in this thread, of having 3D constructs
that you want to fade in or out as if they were transparent 3D objects.

The question of applying alpha to individual paint layers instead of to
elements was me just trying to figure out a way around a "mixed content"
problem, when an element has child content as well as its own paint.  But I
confess I haven't thought it through too carefully.  Maybe "each paint
operation" is too much, and it would be possible to just define two layers:
background, borders and box shadows, versus child elements and text nodes.
The alpha adjustments would apply when compositing the child elements and
text nodes with the background etc., as well as applying to all the
anonymous text boxes.
Received on Monday, 19 September 2016 15:15:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:49:57 UTC