- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 17:06:35 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
On 05/04/2011 02:43 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > David Baron 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/ > > 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... Ok, I've updated the spec with s/source-over/plus/ per dbaron's instructions. But as I'm not a graphics person /at all/, I would like someone to confirm whether the resulting is correct. :) http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css3-images/#cross-fade-function ~fantasai
Received on Friday, 6 May 2011 00:07:07 UTC