- From: Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 11:08:55 +0200
- To: robert@ocallahan.org
- Cc: "Dirk Schulze" <vbs85@gmx.de>, "Jasper van de Gronde" <th.v.d.gronde@hccnet.nl>, www-svg@w3.org
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 10:45:32 +0200, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 8:43 PM, Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com> wrote: > >> What you are suggesting is to allow the filter primitive subregion to be >> larger than the filter region, so calling it 'subregion' sounds wrong >> to me >> (editorial, but still, if that change is made I'd like to call it >> 'filter >> primitive region' instead). >> > > Sounds reasonable. > > >> Regarding clipping to the subregion, is it your opinion then that this >> clipping should take place on the filter input image, on the filter >> output >> image, or both? (For e.g feDisplacementMap this can make quite a >> difference) > > > The output. So if you wanted to clip the filter input image to the subregion you'd need an additional filter primitive, e.g feOffset, to do it - that may be undesirable. Would being able to control the filter primitive region clipping be something worth having? E.g a new attribute regionClip = [ input | output | input-output ]. Cheers /Erik -- Erik Dahlstrom, Core Technology Developer, Opera Software Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group Personal blog: http://my.opera.com/macdev_ed
Received on Monday, 19 April 2010 09:09:39 UTC