- From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 22:15:16 +0000
- To: public-fxtf-archive@w3.org
I'm pretty sure I've come to strongly agree - 2 is the better solution. It's more likely to match what the author wants/expects, more of the time. It also means that if we still do a `background-filter` that applies to the whole composited stack, units in filters will be interpreted identically between the two cases, which I like. > It's also worth considering whether the “image with filtering instructions” approach could be extended to interact with image tiling (so the image is tiled and then blurred — or at least blurred after the browser knows how it is going to be tiled & can make the correct adjustments). This was discussed, and it's easy to achieve either way, and can be made automatic with only a *tiny* bit of context-dependent smarts - if an image is tiled, you use the "wraparound" bleed mode. But that's honestly not different from just doing the whole filter on the post-tiled image, alone with all the other filters. (Plus, I think applying the filter to post-tiled images actually is theoretically distinguishable? If a blur would visibly spread *more than one tile away*, I think using wraparound on a single tile then tiling, vs tiling then blurring the whole thing, is distinguishable.) -- GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/fxtf-drafts/issues/399#issuecomment-628914214 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 14 May 2020 22:15:18 UTC