Re: [css-compositing] some proposals

On Nov 18, 2011, at 9:46 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com> wrote:
> 
> On Nov 17, 2011, at 9:10 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote:
> 
>> Last week I sent out some ideas to update the SVG composting spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/SVGCompositing/.
>> Some people suggested some improvements which I integrated.
>> 
>> Here is the updated list of proposals:
>> a. split up the spec in 2 sections: Porter-Duff & Blending. 
>> Porter-Duff are compositing primitives that describes how 2 images (src+dst) can be merged.
>> Porter-Duff will continue to use the existing comp-op property.
> 
> Can I suggest that we refer to these as alpha compositing and color compositing? I think it would make it more clear what we're talking about (at least for me :-) And given that, I think the better names for the properties are: 'alpha-compositing' and 'color-compositing'.
> 
> 
> I agree.
> Do you think the 'comp-op' should be renamed to 'alpha-comp' to make it more clear that we're talking about alpha compositing?
> I would prefer to keep the 'blending' keyword since people are already familiar with that term.

I definitely think we should drop comp-op, if for no other reason than the fact that it is hard to say :-)

I'm a fan of using full words (alpha-compositing rather than alpha-comp) unless properties start looking like run-on sentences. And I like the idea of color-compositing just because it makes it easier to relate to alpha-compositing. The thing about "blending" is that it can refer to both alpha-blending and color-blending. So I don't think it's a discriminating term. Since this is a Compositing spec, it seems like keeping that word in the properties is appropriate.

But of course, whatever consensus comes up with works for me...

-----
~Chris
cmarrin@apple.com

Received on Friday, 18 November 2011 19:25:14 UTC