- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 14:20:58 -0700
- To: Amelia Bellamy-Royds <amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com>
- Cc: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>, Nexii Malthus <nexiim@gmail.com>, Matt Woodrow <mwoodrow@mozilla.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 Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 8:14 AM, Amelia Bellamy-Royds <amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com> wrote: > Regarding: > > 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. While it's reasonable to want to apply opacity individually to all the objects in a group, applying it to every *leaf shape* in the group is almost certainly not wanted, except in the simplest of cases. In most cases you just want the opacity to be somewhat further down, not pushed all the way to the leaves (thus avoiding the "screaming ghost skull" problem). So, an inherited property that only applies to leaf nodes is almost certainly not desired. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 19 September 2016 21:21:47 UTC