Hi Nexii, in your demo the "impostor" is rendered behind the other content,
which isn't the effect I'd like. I just want things to be transparent like
they were in Chrome 52 *without having to modify any markup.* - Joe
*/#!/*JoePea
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Nexii Malthus <nexiim@gmail.com> wrote:
> By the way, this is how Impostors would look like visually:
> https://jsfiddle.net/jtb9fp3c/
>
> What do you think /#!/JoePea?
>
>
> Assuming the implementation could maybe look like:
>
> .car {
> opacity: 0.4;
> transform-style: impostor;
> }
>
> Would this be implementable/spec-able? The idea is the developer wants to
> preserve some sort of 3d effect, but would be OK with a grouped effect of
> sorts if it's handled to them in a reasonable way.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 at 16:14 Amelia Bellamy-Royds <
> amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Regarding:
>>
>> On 19 September 2016 at 08:58, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> That doesn't sound very useful because it means that each painting
>>> operation will alpha blend/interact with what came before.
>>> I can't think of a scenario where you'd want that. Can you provide an
>>> example?
>>>
>>>
>> Only the examples previously given in this thread, of having 3D
>> constructs that you want to fade in or out as if they were transparent 3D
>> objects.
>>
>> The question of applying alpha to individual paint layers instead of to
>> elements was me just trying to figure out a way around a "mixed content"
>> problem, when an element has child content as well as its own paint. But I
>> confess I haven't thought it through too carefully. Maybe "each paint
>> operation" is too much, and it would be possible to just define two layers:
>> background, borders and box shadows, versus child elements and text nodes.
>> The alpha adjustments would apply when compositing the child elements and
>> text nodes with the background etc., as well as applying to all the
>> anonymous text boxes.
>>
>
Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2016 00:02:58 UTC