- From: Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:10:46 +0200
- To: "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 18:08:57 +0200, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 27, 2011, 4:59:07 PM, Erik wrote:
>
> ED> On Sat, 24 Sep 2011 22:22:04 +0200, David Dailey
> ED> <ddailey@zoominternet.net> wrote:
>
>>> Values above 1.0 should, as Opera does, oversaturate the image. Values
>>> under
>>> 0 should reflect the chroma (but not the luminance? If I see what is
>>> going
>>> on here).
>
> I agree that being able to increase as well as decrease saturation is
> desirable and common behaviour. The restriction to 0..1.0 should be
> lifted in SVG2 (and perhaps, errata'ed in SVG 1.1?)
>
>
>>> Maybe something little and easy to consider for 2.0? A single valued
>>> parameter that does the work of a whole matrix seems like an
>>> improvement
>>> for
>>> authors.
>
> Yes, some syntactic sugar would be easy there.
>
> ED> What Opera does is to use the equations already in the spec for
> computing
> ED> the matrix, they are defined for values outside the 0..1 range too.
>
> Yes, since the equations cover those values its easy to simply lift the
> 0..1 restriction - certainly in SVG2.
I've just made that change in the Filter Effects draft:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/FXTF/raw-file/3f1fdd4a8004/filters/publish/Filters.html#feColorMatrixElement
--
Erik Dahlstrom, Core Technology Developer, Opera Software
Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
Personal blog: http://my.opera.com/macdev_ed
Received on Thursday, 29 September 2011 09:11:26 UTC