- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 10:25:54 -0700
- To: Anthony Grasso <Anthony.Grasso@cisra.canon.com.au>
- Cc: www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>, Alex Danilo <alex@abbra.com>
[just clipping away the emails, since they're long and mostly don't need direct replies] Re: clip-to-self ---------------- Even though the example clearly shows that clip-to-self runs off of geometry rather than alpha, in my head I kept thinking about it in alpha terms. I see now why it's not equivalent to porter-duff operations, even for something simple like 'clear' (using comp-op:clear and clip-to-self:object would clear out the object's shape even if the object was fully transparent). I *much* prefer the suggested name of comp-op-region, with the current 'canvas' and 'object' values. That makes good, intuitive sense, and the 'object' value is decent at suggesting that the property cares about geometry, not alpha. The spec says that "For... filters, the bounds of the object are converted to a clipping region". Are the bounds of a filter well-defined? (They may be; I haven't completely absorbed a lot of parts of SVG yet.) Re: enable-background --------------------- Darn, too bad about the name already being used in Filters. In that case, yeah, keep it as it is. The name isn't *horrible*, it's just less than ideal imo. Replacing the example would do wonders, I think. It's too difficult, imo, to understand what is going on in the current example, where the structure of the markup (namely, that the first two items are in a <g> or similar, which is the thing that has the enable-background property set on it) is unclear, which is vital to understanding that the property only affects the construction of a compositing group. ~TJ
Received on Thursday, 14 April 2011 17:26:42 UTC