- From: Jasper van de Gronde <th.v.d.gronde@hccnet.nl>
- Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 21:49:39 +0200
- To: Hans Schmucker <hansschmucker@gmail.com>
- CC: www-svg@w3.org
Hans Schmucker wrote: >>> Doing this would also mean getting rid of pre-multiplied colors (or at >>> least the implicit conversions and the default setting of using >>> pre-multiplied RGBA input), since these link RGB to A and make >>> independent working impossible. >> I'm not sure this is a good idea. Occasionally I have struggled with this, >> but I think it might be better to handle this differently. If you have more >> control over which channels are used you can ignore the alpha channel in >> some filters for example. Also, if you can specify the kind of channels you >> have you would be able to create images without an alpha channel. > > Good point. But still, I wonder how else you can handle general > "channels" and RGBA: > A prerequisite of using channels is that each channel works > independently: I'd be pretty > confused if I found inside a spec "channels are handled independently, > but RGB is > always interpreted in relation to A". Of course, we could add an > implicit conversion > just for those filters that need it, but that would again mean > limiting the use of that filter. I don't think it would be so strange to just specify that if an A channel is present all other channels (or certain other channels) are in relation to it (for those purposes where we currently prescribe premultiplied colors). (But I definitely can see your point about wanting to keep the logic simple.)
Received on Monday, 31 May 2010 19:50:10 UTC