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

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

From: Matt Woodrow <mwoodrow@mozilla.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 09:16:04 +1200
To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Cc: "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>
Message-ID: <453877c3-297a-766c-b789-ecf22ac41d11@mozilla.com>

On 19/09/16 8:40 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote:
>
> What you're proposing will also change how content is rendered. :-\

So do the other options. It seems like this is the closest to the 
'ideal' rendering we can get.

>
> Why is that not a showstopper? Your proposal seems very difficult to 
> implement since it pushes matrix manipulation all the way down to the 
> individual elements.
> It also introduces more rendering surfaces.
> You're also relying on how firefox is representing the render tree 
> which might be completely different from other UA's
>
> Browsers already have a hard time giving a consistent experience with 
> the simple model and this will make it even more complicated.

That is true, it's definitely complex to implement. I don't think it 
needs more rendering surfaces in gecko at least though.

The example I gave was based on the conceptual idea of preserve-3d, not 
gecko's render tree, it definitely won't be simple for us either.

I think the consistency problems were mainly due to the spec being under 
defined, rather than just difficult to implement.

It seems to me that it might be worth dealing with this implementation 
pain in order to get opacity working more naturally.

- Matt
Received on Monday, 19 September 2016 21:16:40 UTC

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