Re: [Rendering order] z-depth and 3D effects

Hi Steve,

Have you looked at the alternative z-index proposal that I made:

  http://www.w3.org/mid/4AE510F6.6050404@jwatt.org

It practice it's similar to the "SVG Rendering Order" proposal you refer to, but
more general. Rather than just being able to position sibling elements relative
to each other in the z-axis, you can position elements relative to other
elements in entire element trees.

If this doesn't meet your needs, I'd be very interested to hear about it. A
small concrete example (with code) would also be very useful in that case.

Regards,
Jonathan

On 2009-11-11 1:56 AM, Steve Withall wrote:
> Esteemed experts,
> 
> The recent draft "SVG Rendering Order" specification makes a few 3D 
> effects easier to achieve. So does the draft "Transforms" 
> specification. They add to what can be done using filters (drop 
> shadows and lighting, in particular). But all these effects are 
> independent of one another. There's no underlying 3D model, so it is 
> possible merely to *contrive* to make individual objects appear 3D.
> 
> Of course SVG is a format for 2D graphics, and should stay that way. 
> For your consideration I suggest that a 3D model sufficient for SVG 
> could be achieved by allowing a *z-depth* to be defined for each 
> element: its distance above (or below) a datum plane. (I avoid 
> calling it z-height because heights in SVG mean the y dimension.) 
> This single value would be a sufficient basis for calculating 
> consistent drop shadows and consistent perspective transforms across 
> many or all elements.
> 
> Alternatively a z-depth could be defined for each z-order value. 
> That's probably sufficient in some situations, but not in others.
> 
> An additional use case I have is displaying multiple SVG canvases 
> layered one above the other. I want each *canvas* to have a z-depth, 
> so I can throw well-positioned drop shadows from objects in one 
> canvas on to objects in canvases below. This can be regarded as the 
> ability to define the "absolute" (wider world) z-depth of the datum 
> plane for each canvas.
> 
> Finally, is it worth the Working Group making a formal statement of 
> the extent and limits of SVG's 3D ambitions? (Forgive me if this 
> exists somewhere that I don't know about.) It could be something 
> along the lines of treating each element as two dimensional, but 
> offering ways to make collections of these 2D elements appear as if 
> they exist in a 3D environment.
> 
> Thanks, Steve.
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 16 November 2009 17:34:11 UTC