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"
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

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