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

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

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 12:10:24 +0100
Message-ID: <CAGN7qDAB_gaiVfnvWSX6pk1UBXE5OcKT_UpTbsBbxTBQiehYeQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matt Woodrow <mwoodrow@mozilla.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>
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Matt Woodrow <mwoodrow@mozilla.com> wrote:

> 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.

What other options? The one that Safari has implemented?
That one relies on their render tree which is unspecified.

> It seems like this is the closest to the 'ideal' rendering we can get.

As Tab said, there are few case where you'd actually want the "screaming skull"
If you DO want it, it's easy to apply opacity using a selector.

> 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.

Can you state what is under defined in the spec? The document's been in
limbo for so many years and it would be great if some progress could be

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

What makes opacity so special? (Or are you proposing that other effects
also inherit this behavior?)
"naturally" is also ambivalent. I find the current Chrome behavior more
Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2016 11:10:54 UTC

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