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: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 08:58:19 +0100
Message-ID: <CAGN7qDDYKb_wzBW0WJuOfU5086c5Y2do6XZ_nq17wNKdvmZB8g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matt Woodrow <mwoodrow@mozilla.com>
Cc: Tien-Ren Chen <trchen@chromium.org>, "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 Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 12:39 AM, Matt Woodrow <mwoodrow@mozilla.com> wrote:

> On 22/09/16 11:37 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote:
> In addition, your proposal *also* affects web content because opacity is
> now applied to the group instead of being distributed to the children.
> It's true, but I figured it would be close enough to the old rendering
> that the majority of existing content would work with it (assuming they
> just want opacity, not specifically opacity distributed to the children)
> while also being correct wrt group-opacity and not implementation dependent.
>> This thread was started by an author who's content was broken, so it
>> seems reasonable to re-visit these assumptions.
> Yes, we went over his examples and told him how to fix it (= apply opacity
> to the elements)
> Since Firefox knows that it's flattening, could it create a warning in the
> console and point to an MDN page with more information?
> 1: https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!msg/
> blink-dev/eBIp90_il1o/jrxzMW_4BQAJ
> <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#%21msg/blink-dev/eBIp90_il1o/jrxzMW_4BQAJ>
> 2: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1250718
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1278021
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1229317
> I still think that applying group-opacity to a subset of a 3d scene is a
> reasonable use case (that can't be easily solved without this), and one
> that we could support without breaking anything worse than we already plan
> to.
> Doesn't look like this is getting much traction though, so I'll probably
> just accept the spec change and go ahead with ship flattening of opacity in
> Firefox.

Good to hear! This was a great discussion.
If you (or anyone else) can come up with a better solution, maybe we can
add it to the spec as another value when we integrate Simon Fraser's
Received on Friday, 23 September 2016 07:59:26 UTC

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