W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fxtf-archive@w3.org > May 2018

Re: [fxtf-drafts] [filter-effects] For filter() image function, do you use intrinsic or extrinsic image dimensions

From: Amelia Bellamy-Royds via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 26 May 2018 16:42:23 +0000
To: public-fxtf-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-392273088-1527352942-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Sorry I didn't see the edits in December.

The change doesn't seems to address the original issue, that a concrete object size cannot be assessed for an `<image>` in isolation. It always needs the context in which it is used.

My suggested text would be:

> The `filter()` function has no effect on
> the [object size negotiation](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-images-3/#object-negotiation).
> The size of the image, before and after filtering,
> must be the same as if the source image was directly used in place of the filter function.
> Filter- and filter effect regions are sized according to the
> resulting [concrete object size](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-images-3/#concrete-object-size) of the input `<image>`.

Note that this does not allow you to use a filter to increase the size of the input image: the filter results would be clipped to the concrete object size.

PS, @dirkschulze Are you planning to defer `filter()` to level 2, or have you got implementation commitments from anyone?

GitHub Notification of comment by AmeliaBR
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/fxtf-drafts/issues/177#issuecomment-392273088 using your GitHub account
Received on Saturday, 26 May 2018 16:42:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:50:23 UTC