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" effect. 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 made. > 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 natural.
Received on Tuesday, 20 September 2016 11:10:54 UTC