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

Re: [css-masking] new value for 'mask-clip'

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 17:32:58 +1300
Message-ID: <CAOp6jLZ4xnY15Tk9QpceVEj=gB5+nNcsKbZ-br_7AeOM_QMy-A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Cc: "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 11:04 AM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:

> On Oct 24, 2012, at 2:47 PM, "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> Relative values on SVG for example:
>>
>> <svg width="100%" height="100%">
>> ...
>>
>> Which is very common on SVG, since these are the default values.
>>
>
> Aren't those resolved relative to the background painting area, not the
> background clip area?
>
> That would make sense for backgrounds, since a background can't overflow.
> It would not be the desired way for masking, since it means you always clip
> overflowing content with an SVG file. Something that I would like to avoid.
>

That's only a problem if the <svg> itself is used as a mask, right? Which I
don't think you can even do. A <mask> element, used as a mask, would not be
clipped by any clipping on its <svg> ancestor.

Maybe I'm just confused. It would help if you gave a concrete example.

Rob
-- 
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
that you may be children of your Father in heaven. ... If you love those
who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors
doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more
than others?" [Matthew 5:43-47]
Received on Friday, 26 October 2012 04:33:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:01 GMT