Re: [css-images][filter-effects] interpolation of filter() to url()/image()

On Sep 4, 2013, at 4:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 11:52 PM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I had a discussion on IRC about interpolating from a CSS Image filter() function to a normal image reference and the other way around. It was suggested that authors may not want to use filter() at start and end of a transition to have a interpolation of filter functions. At least if the input image on filter() is the same as the image at the end of the transition.
>> 
>> @keyframes filter {
>>  0% {
>>    background-image: filter(url(image.png), grayscale(100%));
>>  }
>>  100% {
>>    background-image: url(image.png);
>>  }
>> }
>> 
>> The request was that the function above does not do a cross-fade from one image to the other but interpolate the grayscale filter function instead. Just as if the author would have specified filter(url(image.png), grayscale(0)).
>> 
>> Note that this request is just for interpolating from and to the same image source.
>> 
>> The question is if we should just special case filter() or other image functions as well it we think this is useful. And to which extend to we want to support it?
> 
> Because filter() has useful "do nothing" defaults, I think this is
> reasonable.  We'll have to start being careful about precedence if we
> start doing this, though - if we ever add a second function which
> makes sense to do this for, we'll need to define how to decide which
> should be magicked up (or, if both should be, which is the "outer"
> function).

Agree. That is why I bring it up. So far we have url() and image() as some kind of "source" functions. What about image-set? And last but not least cross-fade? filter() to url()/image()/image-set() can be intuitive, but what about the content of cross-fade?

Greetings,
Dirk

> 
> ~TJ

Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2013 15:03:39 UTC