- From: Jonas Sicking <jonas@sicking.cc>
- Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 21:45:01 -0700
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert at ocallahan.org> wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > >> On Wed, 4 May 2011, Robert O'Callahan wrote: >> > 4) remove the no-shadow special case, but add a special case to not draw >> > shadows for operators other than source-over >> > >> > I think I prefer #4. I have yet to hear of any use-case that needs >> > shadows with an operator other than source-over, and it would probably >> > simplify the spec and implementations a little bit. >> >> #4 seems fine to me. Does anyone object to #4? I propose waiting until >> browser vendors implement this (to test that it is not a compatibility >> problem), and then updating the spec accordingly. >> > > Can you put a note in the spec that we're thinking of changing this > behavior, so developers are less likely to start depending on it, and we've > got some cover in case it breaks some esoteric stuff that doesn't matter for > compat? Yes! This is in general something we need to do more of. Migrating to better APIs is made much harder by having the spec say something different. (For what it's worth, I really wish we would do this for W3C bug 11960) / Jonas
Received on Thursday, 12 May 2011 21:45:01 UTC