- From: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
- Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 16:55:11 -0800
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: www-style <www-style@w3.org>
On Jan 29, 2010, at 9:43 am, L. David Baron wrote: > On Friday 2010-01-29 09:25 -0500, Boris Zbarsky wrote: >> 624 // FIXME (spec): The CSS transitions spec doesn't say whether >> 625 // colors are premultiplied, but things work better when they are, >> 626 // so use premultiplication. Spec issue is still open per >> 627 // http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Jul/0050.html > > I feel somewhat strongly at this point that animation of colors > should be in premultiplied space; this was mostly after > experimenting with the results of both on: > http://dbaron.org/css/test/2009/transitions/transitions-alpha > Doing this does remove some author control, as I said in > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Jul/0048.html , > but I think the tradeoff of getting expected results is worth it. I agree that animating colors in premultiplied space gives better results most of the time. > (Another related point is that animations of colors should probably > honor the 'color-interpolation' property in > http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/painting.html#ColorInterpolationProperties .) Color interpolation should probably match gradients too (which implies that CSS gradients should also honor 'color-interpolation'). Simon
Received on Sunday, 31 January 2010 00:55:45 UTC