- From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@adobe.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 13:25:02 -0700
- To: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, Nikos Andronikos <nikos.andronikos@cisra.canon.com.au>, "public-svg-wg@w3.org" <public-svg-wg@w3.org>
An implementor always has to do this anyway. The only difference is if the bitmap is filled with transparent black (= isolated) or the backdrop (=non-isolated) In PDF, this information comes from the bbox in the transparency group. Regardless of isolation, the buffer is created. (See 11.4.3 in the PDF spec) Rik > -----Original Message----- > From: Leonard Rosenthol > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2012 1:09 PM > To: Rik Cabanier; Nikos Andronikos; public-svg-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: SVG 2 rendering model > > On 8/2/12 3:34 PM, "Rik Cabanier" <cabanier@adobe.com> wrote: > > >Hi Leonard, > > > >> The problem with making isolated the default is that it will impact > >> performance for all of the normal cases. > >Isolated is faster since you don't have to composite all the group to > >get the background. > > But you DO have to create an "offscreen buffer", composite the entire > group into that, and then blit the entire "offscreen" back. So you're > clearly using more memory and time than simply putting bits into the existing > buffer. > > > >The compositing spec specifies the order in which filters and > >compositing happens. > >The filters spec should say if the stacking group it creates is > >isolated or not. I believe people don't want it to be isolated (and can > >post some examples if needed) > > But how would you apply a filter to a group that has already been blended > into the background? The result is certainly going to be different - which > may be good or bad. > > I would think that given a group with a filter applied to it, you have to make > that specific group isolated, apply the filter, and only then blend it to the > background. > > Leonard
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2012 20:25:29 UTC