W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2013

RE: [css-compositing] new Editor's draft posted -> update

From: David Dailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 21:51:47 -0400
To: "'Tab Atkins Jr.'" <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Rik Cabanier'" <cabanier@gmail.com>, <public-fx@w3.org>, "'www-style list'" <www-style@w3.org>, "'www-svg'" <www-svg@w3.org>, "'David Baron'" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "'Robert O'Callahan'" <robert@ocallahan.org>
Message-ID: <00cb01ce5821$44cb9200$ce62b600$@net>
I find as bizarre that you would conclude that that was my implication. 

Thanks for the attempt to understand.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tab Atkins Jr. [mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 8:15 PM
To: David Dailey
Cc: Rik Cabanier; public-fx@w3.org; www-style list; www-svg; David Baron; Robert O'Callahan
Subject: Re: [css-compositing] new Editor's draft posted -> update

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 5:06 PM, David Dailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net> wrote:
> c)       Will there be a CSS module separate from compositing to handle the
> broad spectrum of SVG filters? i.e, is CSS-filters forking into two parts:
> compositing and the other stuff?

Oh, forgot about this one:

Note that this is being developed by the FXTF, which is a task force for items that cross CSS and SVG boundaries, contains both CSSWG and SVGWG members, and has f2f meetings when the two groups' meetings overlap (one is planned for this June).  Your bizarre implications that this is somehow being done at the expense of SVG, or without knowledge or participation of the SVGWG, are just wrong.

Received on Friday, 24 May 2013 01:52:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:30 UTC