I've been reading, but have been busy, and am involved with this only on my free time. I have one more response coming to better detail the pain points of the new opacity behavior and why the proposed solutions don't work. */#!/*JoePea On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 12:58 AM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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 > proposal. >
Received on Saturday, 24 September 2016 01:09:09 UTC