o yes. Yes, change it because it confused me too :-) On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 10:07 PM, Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com> wrote: > (2012/08/06 13:44), Rik Cabanier wrote: > >> Isn't the new mask used as follows: >> >> <rect id ="r_1...> >> <rect mask="element(#r_1)"> >> >> or as CSS (?): >> >> <rect id ="r_1...> >> <rect style = "mask: element(#r_1);"> >> >> >> If so, I think it's compatible with the css4 element() notation. >> In fact, I think we want the exact same wording and behavior as that >> element. (Including the wording on compositing over a transparent >> backdrop) >> > > It's as Dirk mentioned, the way we described using element() was primarily > for selection rather than rendering. The rendering is a separate step. > > You should be able to use this scheme to target a <mask> element which we > then process as usual (e.g. interpret the mask region, mask type etc.) > rather than just rendering it as if it were an image. > > This is especially necessary for paint servers when you need to > disambiguate which child is the stroke and which is the fill. > > The way we described it, the selection was scoped to the children of > element where it is applied. e.g. > > <path fill="select(linearGradient)" stroke="select(solidColor)"/> > <linearGradient/> > <solidColor/> > </path> > > The example you gave above, "mask: element(#r_1);", still works if we > allow a CSS <image> (which includes the element() syntax). > > Brian >Received on Monday, 6 August 2012 05:40:38 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 22 June 2015 03:33:48 UTC