Robert O'Callahan wrote:
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Charles Pritchard <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Here is a good example of the conflict between Google and Mozilla
over clip():
http://www.imperialviolet.org/2009/09/02/anti-aliased-clipping.html
There is another conflict, with the composition modes between the
two, with Google
again taking another principled stand. I'm sorry I don't
supporting links for that,
but it effects many of the composite operations (at least four of
them).
No, it is entirely about antialiasing. Coverage-based antialiasing
causes problems whenever you draw two objects with adjacent edges that
aren't aligned to pixel boundaries. It doesn't matter whether those
boundaries are induced by clipping or just by filling a path. The post
you linked to even refers to this:
It also refers to Chrome's 1-bit clipping path.
I apologize for not having a better reference -- several of the
composite results
on the following resource have quite different results on Chrome.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Canvas_tutorial/Compositing
Should I perhaps take a different term, and rename this as a masking issue?
Would that be more accurate?
Chrome has taken a firm stance on how masking should be implemented,
Firefox has taken another view. This seems to be something that could be
mediated if the standard gives room for both of them, through a simple
boolean toggle.
If I it were called "strictMasking" or something like that, would you
support it?
I want to restrict its effects to the current divide in clip() and
globalCompositeOperation
because that's where the trouble is. I'm not trying to add a new
feature, just trying
to bring two implementations to the same standard.
-Charles
