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

Re: [css-masking] Paint server as mask is redundant

From: Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:09:19 +0900
Message-ID: <506263CF.1030204@mozilla.com>
To: public-fx@w3.org
(2012/09/25 22:24), Dirk Schulze wrote:
> A URL on a 'mask' property can also reference a paint server [1]. This seems to be redundant to the functionality of the CSS4 Images 'element()' function[2]. I would like to remove this requirement from CSS Masking. Any objections?

What do we do with the <child-selector> value (e.g. 
select(linearGradient)) though?

Can these still target paint server elements? I guess not? And if not, I 
wonder if we need it, or if 'child' is enough?

To give some examples. Currently you can do the following:

<g mask="select(linearGradient)">
   <linearGradient>
     ...
   </linearGradient>
   <path ... />
   <path ... />
</g>

If we make <child-selector> only valid for mask elements then you'd need 
to wrap the <linearGradient> in a <mask> element. Probably that's ok. 
But then you wouldn't need select() just,

<g mask="child">
   <mask>
     <linearGradient>
       ...
     </linearGradient>
   </mask>
   <path ... />
   <path ... />
</g>

The only cases where you'd need the select() syntax in that case is if 
you have multiple <mask> element children than you want to choose 
between which I suspect is uncommon.

Best regards,

Brian
Received on Wednesday, 26 September 2012 02:09:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 26 September 2012 02:09:50 GMT