- From: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 12:43:28 +1100
- To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Cc: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@adobe.com>, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, ed@opera.com, www-style@w3.org
On 06/01/2011, at 11:31 AM, Cameron McCormack wrote: > Rik Cabanier: >> Thanks for the info! >> >> Having the filter defined externally to the CSS by using 'url(#..)' will make it harder to use. Is there a proposal to make it part of css? >> Animated filter are very useful ie it's very common to use a blur filter to simulate motion. > > I think it is worth looking into having shorthand filters specified just > in the property itself, like you have with blur(5) below. If you wanted > to support all of what SVG filters currently supports, by writing > something in a single property, it’s going to get somewhat complicated, > though. I don’t know how far we want to take it. Yeah, it could get ugly defining a filter graph in a property. It would probably end up looking like lisp code - you'll be lost in the parentheses. Also, it's not exactly straightforward to write complex filter chains anyway. In many cases a set of built-in effects will be what developers want. > > An advantage of allowing filter definitions in the filter property, as > you have done, is that CSS Transitions can define what it means to > interpolate between two values. Exactly. Dean > If we only have url() values, then it’s > just going to be a discrete change, and you would need to have the > transition/animation targetting the <feGaussianBlur> element itself. > And that would mean that if you want to have multiple elements having an > animated blur, you would need separate instances of the whole <filter> > so that they could separately animated their blur radius attributes. > > -- > Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/ >
Received on Thursday, 6 January 2011 01:44:36 UTC