- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 21:22:12 -0700
- To: David Dailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net>
- CC: 'FX Taskforce' <public-fx@w3.org>, 'SVG public list' <www-svg@w3.org>
Hi David, On 3/11/11 7:28 PM, David Dailey wrote: > First just a comment: my goodness what an extraordinary number of > things you've talked about -- I can imagine your heads must hurt. > Thanks to the note-takers! Not my head, but my hands after a day of minute taking. :) ... > Is the work on SVG Filters now separate from the work on > compositing? They were always separate, I believe. Compositing, since being split out from the old SVG 1.2 Full WD, has never been published separately. Filter Effects has been progressing as a joint SVG/CSS deliverable. The SVG Filters specifications is going away in favour of the Filter Effects specification. > Is the implementation of 3D transforms only going to be done at the > level of the bitmap and not to the actual geometry of the vectors > affected? and there are accessibility reasons for applying SVG > filters (that preserve geometry and not just bitmaps) to HTML > content. (e.g. colorblindness) The way 3D transforms would be done in hardware would be to render the SVG content to a raster, upload that as a texture, and then have the GPU apply the 3D transformation to it (AIUI). It's not clear to me what the exact accessibility concerns with that would be. > Is there stuff that Porter-Duff can do that feComposite and > feColorMatrix together can't? Seems like it might be possible to implement the Porter-Duff blend modes with those. The blend modes probably not. > How about if you add Vector effects (to allow the Euler diagrams)? Not sure that would help.
Received on Saturday, 5 November 2011 16:32:59 UTC