- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 12:47:23 -0700
- To: Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com>
- Cc: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Jul 28, 2011, at 3:06 AM, "Leif Arne Storset" <lstorset@opera.com> wrote: > Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> skreiv Thu, 28 Jul 2011 01:49:14 +0200 > >> On Jul 27, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Brian Manthos <brianman@microsoft.com> wrote: >> >>> I meant an example usage, but that's good enough for now. >>> >>> I'd rather see the interpolation specified in the gradient specification itself. >>> >>> Doing it as part of the gradient itself would allow for varying the interpolation mode across layers of a background-image specification, whereas doing it as a separate property wouldn't allow that. Unless of course you want to make color-interpolation a layered property as well... >> >> That strikes me as a very good point. An author who who wants this level of control over whether or not to premultiply might also want to control it on a background layer by background layer basis. > > Then again, if the author knows enough about premultiplication to care, he or she (or the editor) is probably knowledgeable enough to just code everything unpremultiplied. (As I far as I can see premultiplying is only done so authors can use the intuitive "transparent" keyword - it doesn't enable any additional effects.) Another problem is that if the pre-multiplication switch is per-gradient then you couldn't do an animation or transition between two gradients with that switch set differently, right? But if it is per-element, then you don't have that problem.
Received on Friday, 29 July 2011 19:48:00 UTC