- From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 14:43:34 -0700
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
- Message-ID: <BANLkTi=nHHZQ0u43JH7-X3jZcGWCcT1rBw@mail.gmail.com>
I *think* you're right. It should read either: Then, the start image has a global alpha applied to it equal to (1-p), the end image has a global alpha applied to it equal to p, and the end image is then composited over the start image with the plus operation or Then, the end image has a global alpha applied to it equal to p, and the end image is then composited over the start image with the source-over operation but I could be wrong... Rik On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:40 AM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > I think the current definition of cross-fade() in > http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#cross-fade-function is > incorrect. It defines cross-fade() in terms of the porter-duff over > operator, which is not symmetric. This means that cross-fade(A, B, > 30%) is different from cross-fade(B, A, 70%). > > I *think*, though I'm not sure, that the right way to define > cross-fade is in terms of the plus operator described in section 4.5 > of the original Porter-Duff paper: > http://keithp.com/~keithp/porterduff/ > > -David > > -- > L. David Baron http://dbaron.org/ > Mozilla Corporation http://www.mozilla.com/ > >
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2011 21:44:46 UTC