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

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

From: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:11:31 -0700
Cc: "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
Message-id: <959DFEBB-00A6-4817-A76A-7B11AEFD8087@me.com>
To: Leif Arne Storset <lstorset@opera.com>
On Aug 29, 2012, at 8:02 AM, Leif Arne Storset wrote:

> 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.

I'm OK dropping mask-attachment and mask-clip, but I think mask-origin is useful and should be preserved. Interesting effects can be obtained by animating background-origin, and preserving this ability for masks is important.

Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2012 16:12:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 22 June 2015 03:33:48 UTC