Re: [css-compositing] why general blending is confusing

On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 5:04 AM, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com> wrote:

> On 12 Oct 2013, at 7:00 pm, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure what problem you're pointing to. Are you saying the spec is
> unclear
>
>
> No.
>

Hmm OK. Your most recent message ("Should the image be blending with its
sibling?") suggested you consider the spec unclear.


> , or that it's too hard to implement in some situations (which situations?)
>
>
> It will depend on what the specification requires, but it will be hard to
> implement
> something that produces the same output for examples 3 and 4 in my test.
>

According to the spec they should produce different output. In example 4
the CSS transform makes the blendingbg element a stacking context,
therefore an isolated group, and therefore the 'content' element does not
blend into the page background (it blends into the transparent black
background of the isolated group instead).

Mostly this, yes. I don’t think an author will understand when layers are
> created,
> and why behaviour changes dramatically when they are.
>

The implicit creation of an isolated group for every stacking context may
be confusing, but it's much easier to implement, more performant, and
probably less confusing in edge cases than any other proposal on the table.

However, if the WG are happy with this, and we can describe all of the
> complicated ways a page may be composited (in a cross browser way),
>

As far as I know the spec is already clear enough.

Rob
-- 
Jtehsauts  tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy  Mdaon  yhoaus  eanuttehrotraiitny  eovni
le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o  Whhei csha iids  teoa
stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d  'mYaonu,r  "sGients  uapr,e  tfaokreg iyvoeunr,
'm aotr  atnod  sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t"  uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n?  gBoutt  uIp
waanndt  wyeonut  thoo mken.o w  *
*