- From: Doug Schepers <doug.schepers@vectoreal.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 23:47:53 -0400
- To: MenTaLguY <mental@rydia.net>
- Cc: bulia byak <buliabyak@gmail.com>, www-svg@w3.org, Inkscape ML <inkscape-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Hi, Mental, Bulia- Great conversation, and thanks for getting back to real-world use cases. I liked Chris' gradientMesh suggestion, and like Mental I'm not yet convinced some variation on it might not be suitable. But I'm open to other suggestions, especially those based on pragmatic experience. The idea of prototyping the various options strikes me as the best way forward, and to come up with a set of end goals we are trying to accomplish with the new gradient(s). Photorealism (or something akin to it) seems to be one use case. This also suggests a nod to 3D-esque textures or shading (I don't want SVG to go down the true 3D path). Bulia, your example seemed to have more in common with filters than it did a gradient/affine transformation, so we might consider look at this as part of the new Filters spec, as possible variant approach. MenTaLguY wrote: > On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 20:24 -0300, bulia byak wrote: >> It will be too linear, too clunky, with too visible vertices and edges. > > As already noted, this may mean we need to use instead a non-linear > blending function. I'm not yet convinced that we need to abandon > triangle meshes, and I dislike the interaction model for coons patches > (the major alternative proposed). > > Perhaps the next thing for me to do is to rig up a very minimal > application oriented to a specific task (say, reproducing a photograph) > where we can assess the practicality of different blending functions and > variations on the mesh idea. That way, we aren't also worrying > prematurely about how meshes ought to be encoded in SVG (or implemented > in Inkscape). Regards- -Doug www.schepers.cc
Received on Saturday, 26 May 2007 03:48:02 UTC