- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:41:02 -0700
- To: Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com>
- Cc: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>, www-svg@w3.org, public-fx@w3.org
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 1:57 AM, Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com> wrote: > On the topic of the noise() shorthand, a thing that comes to mind is that > such a construct would need to take at least a couple of parameters to be > useful, and it would still most likely need to be coupled with additional > filter steps (to e.g threshold and colorize the result). > > For an example of what feTurbulence produces when used without combining it > with other filter primitives, see e.g > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/FXTF/raw-file/tip/filters/examples/feTurbulence.svg. > > I think that if we decide to add a css noise() shorthand it's better suited > as a filter shorthand than as a CSS <image> generator. The question I'm > asking is: what kind of image is it that people expect to get from noise()? > The same as in the svg example above? (those example use 3 explicit > parameters and one implicit (the random seed), I'm not counting the > generated image size since I assume that'd be provided elsewhere in CSS as > well). The uses I'm thinking of (which may be incomplete) will generally want something like the bottom middle one - fractalNoise, .4 frequency, 4 octaves. ~TJ
Received on Friday, 7 September 2012 15:41:52 UTC