W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 2012

Re: [css2][css3-exclusions] 'clip' with more shapes and all elements

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 07:35:08 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAbSpa9f3jh7S_52CpuseA0jjE4oj+jBJbsHC1kM6Wt4Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: robert@ocallahan.org
Cc: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:06 AM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
>> > 'clip-path' could still be used for referencing SVG 'clipPath' elements
>> > or could shadow 'clip' and 'clip' supports a <FuncIRI> as well.
>>
>> We've finally stumbled on a decent way to handle aliasing -
>> 'clip-path' can be treated as a shorthand for 'clip', and we can add
>> url()/select() to 'clip' in addition to the shape functions.
>
>
> We made clip-path induce a stacking context on the element. As usual, this
> made implementation a lot easier.
>
> Making 'clip' handle arbitrary shapes, while not inducing a stacking
> context, would be a real pain to implement (although we could do it). Making
> 'clip' induce a stacking context would pose its own Web compatibility
> hazard.
>
> If some browser vendors wants to do those Web compatibility experiments,
> please go ahead. I'm a bit fatigued by break-the-Web experiments at the
> moment :-).

Aw, but you're so good at it!

I'll see about trying some out.  If they fail, perhaps we can do the
opposite, and make 'clip' alias to 'clip-path', with the necessary
behavior.

I'm curious, though, why using arbitrary shapes without a stacking
context is difficult, but using a rectangle is okay.

~TJ
Received on Monday, 20 August 2012 14:36:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:58 GMT