W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > July to September 2012

[css-masking] Dropping mask-attachment, mask-origin and mask-clip

From: Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:02:30 +0200
To: "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
Message-ID: <op.wjs5egnmtmo5g6@localhost.localdomain>
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 02:05:20 +0200, Robert O'Callahan
<robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:

…

> Looking at the top 50 Google hits or so I don't see any sign of people
> using -webkit-mask-origin or -webkit-mask-clip either.

…

> I think the case for dropping mask-attachment is pretty strong, given
> Webkit doesn't implement it, no-one has presented any use-cases, and
> background-attachment:fixed is a real pain so mask-attachment:fixed
> probably would be too.

Agreed.

> I think we could also drop mask-origin and mask-clip. OTOH they're not  
> very hard to implement so you could argue we should just keep them for  
> increased consistency with backgrounds. I tend to favour parsimony, so  
> dropping them unless/until there are use-cases, but I wouldn't object to  
> keeping them.

Would dropping mask-origin and always behaving as if it was "padding-box"  
mean that the mask would never leave any border and padding visible?  
Granted, controlling that doesn't sound too useful, and apparently nobody  
did it. I couldn't get it to work in Chrome, though, so maybe it's not  
popular only because it's not straightforward to use.

mask-clip seems to be redundant with actually specifying border/padding or  
not. I think it can go.

-- 
Leif Arne Storset
Layout Developer, Opera Software
Oslo, Norway
Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2012 15:03:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 29 August 2012 15:03:04 GMT