4 ms·

The term "blend mode" specifically refers to color blending. It isn't just "blending" nor does the addition of the word "mode" at the end of the property indica

The term "blend mode" specifically refers to color blending. It isn't just "blending" nor does the addition of the word "mode" at the end of the property indicate some sort of redundancy in the attribute name. This single slip up as an indicator of the author(s) not being familiar with a particular graphics industry term makes me question the validity of every other claim of "mistake" on the page. > rgba() and hsla() should not exist, rgb() and hsl() should have gotten an optional fourth parameter instead (and the alpha value should have used the same format as R, G, and B or S and L). Absolutely not. RGB is not RGBA. Perhaps the lack of robust rendering of webpages across most browsers is due to standards bodies, even lesser ones like csswg, not knowing anything about the fundamental graphics layers powering them.

TabAtkins 11y ago
trolololol The term "blend mode" is a term of art in the industry, yes. But "mode" is always redundant - lots of properties switch "modes", particularly the ones with keyword values. For example, we could have had "display-mode" rather than "display", but that would definitely have been redundant. The word "blend" isn't used for anything else reasonable in CSS's wheelhouse, so using it by itself would have been fine. I'm not sure what difference you think you're alluding to between RGB and RGBA. All browsers store colors as RGBA 4-tuples. Are you perhaps under the impression that "RGB" and "RGBA" refer to particular color spaces or something? They don't - nearly all color spaces are alpha-agnostic and can have an alpha value appended to their color definition. (The few exceptions are things like pre-multiplied RGBA, where the RGB components depend on the alpha. But these are rare) Given that the CSSWG's membership is largely browser implementors, I'm pretty sure we have a handle on what the fuck our graphics stack does.
- andrewmcwatters 11y ago
  Every argument you made you counter-argued using my own points within your own post. 1. > The term "blend mode" is a term of art in the industry, yes. 2. > For example, we could have had "display-mode" rather than "display", but that would definitely have been redundant. 3. > The few exceptions are things like pre-multiplied RGBA, where the RGB components depend on the alpha. But these are rare. Yes, because RGB isn't RGBA. If anything it should be RGBA with an optional alpha. Because you know, that's how the _structs are formed to begin with._ And separately, > Given that the CSSWG's membership is largely browser implementors, I'm pretty sure we have a handle on what the fuck our graphics stack does. Yes, as far as the people who actually write the portions of browser code that involve placing pixels on the screen. You however, clearly do not. I'm not sure what you're doing in a spec committee; you don't sound like a person who has any experience writing low level code regarding these systems. Given this, it's worrying because I'd wager that you'd make uneducated decisions affecting others based on this lack of experience.
  - TabAtkins 11y ago
    lolololol obvious troll is obvious "i disagree with you, thus you must be lying about your experience and actually unworthy of doing your job, unlike me, the superior being" go get your diaper changed

TabAtkins 11y ago

trolololol The term "blend mode" is a term of art in the industry, yes. But "mode" is always redundant - lots of properties switch "modes", particularly the ones with keyword values. For example, we could have had "display-mode" rather than "display", but that would definitely have been redundant. The word "blend" isn't used for anything else reasonable in CSS's wheelhouse, so using it by itself would have been fine. I'm not sure what difference you think you're alluding to between RGB and RGBA. All browsers store colors as RGBA 4-tuples. Are you perhaps under the impression that "RGB" and "RGBA" refer to particular color spaces or something? They don't - nearly all color spaces are alpha-agnostic and can have an alpha value appended to their color definition. (The few exceptions are things like pre-multiplied RGBA, where the RGB components depend on the alpha. But these are rare) Given that the CSSWG's membership is largely browser implementors, I'm pretty sure we have a handle on what the fuck our graphics stack does.

andrewmcwatters 11y ago
Every argument you made you counter-argued using my own points within your own post. 1. > The term "blend mode" is a term of art in the industry, yes. 2. > For example, we could have had "display-mode" rather than "display", but that would definitely have been redundant. 3. > The few exceptions are things like pre-multiplied RGBA, where the RGB components depend on the alpha. But these are rare. Yes, because RGB isn't RGBA. If anything it should be RGBA with an optional alpha. Because you know, that's how the _structs are formed to begin with._ And separately, > Given that the CSSWG's membership is largely browser implementors, I'm pretty sure we have a handle on what the fuck our graphics stack does. Yes, as far as the people who actually write the portions of browser code that involve placing pixels on the screen. You however, clearly do not. I'm not sure what you're doing in a spec committee; you don't sound like a person who has any experience writing low level code regarding these systems. Given this, it's worrying because I'd wager that you'd make uneducated decisions affecting others based on this lack of experience.
- TabAtkins 11y ago
  lolololol obvious troll is obvious "i disagree with you, thus you must be lying about your experience and actually unworthy of doing your job, unlike me, the superior being" go get your diaper changed