W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2013

Re: [css-masking] editorial changes

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 09:39:07 -0800
Message-ID: <52A8A33B.3030603@inkedblade.net>
To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On 12/11/2013 08:40 AM, Dirk Schulze wrote:
> Hi,
> On Dec 11, 2013, at 11:46 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
>>    1. I'd like to see mask-type and the <mask> element given their
>>       own top-level section. They're defining a mask source, not
>>       a mask application, as the rest of the properties are.
> That sounds reasonable. Although, <mask> is very depending on mask-image.
> (The only property that can reference it.)
>>    2. Similarly, I'd like to see <clipPath> and 'clip-rule', which
>>       (afaict) define a clip "source" given a separate top-level
>>       section from 'clip' and 'clip-path', which define a clip path's
>>       application.
> Same applies to clip-path and <clipPath> as for mask-image and <mask>.
> I do not object to either change but am also not in favor for
> transforming it.

I find it extremely confusing that 'clip-rule' and 'mask-type'
are defined in the same section alongside 'mask-source-type'
and 'clip-path'; it took me asking questions about them here
to understand that these are applied to completely different
sets of elements (one to the masked/clipped element, another
to an SVG shape source). So please make these changes.

>>    3. Since 'mask' now is a shorthand for both layered masks and
>>       box-image masks, it shouldn't be under the layered masks
>>       section.
> The main task is still to be a shorthand for all mask-image based
> properties. To reset the max-box-image properties as well is just
> a secondary function.

Fair enough. Please at least add a note to the 'mask-box-image'
shorthand referencing 'mask' and explaining how they interact.

>>    5. Would recommend shifting clipping above masking, since I'm
>>       *guessing* we'd prefer people to clip if they can, then mask
>>       if it's too complicated for clipping, not Mask All the Things.
> On the one hand, yes. Clipping is easier and faster to implement.
> From talking with designers, they prefer masking more. However,
> I doubt that any order in the spec will influence the behavior
> of authors. I do not care which comes first.

It might help the tutorial authors to talk about it first,
which might influence the authors? It's a long shot, but
then, it's just swapping the order of sections.

>>    6. Intro still needs work. Structure should probably be
>>         - What is masking and clipping, and why do we care?
>>           Focus first on their similarities, but also explain their
>>           differences so we know which one we're interested in for which
>>           applications.
> This is part of the intro currently. [...]

No, it's not really. The intro talks about masking only, up to the
last paragraph. There's no explanation of how they are similar and

>>        - More on Masking:
>>            - More technical detail on masking, if needed
> What do you think is missing?

I don't think anything is missing, I think this is where you should
put any more technical definitions that weren't in the first paragraph
(which should be focused on basic concepts of clipping & masking),
if you have any to add.

>>        - How to mask things with CSS: what is CSS masking able to
>>          do, and what features do I use to do it?
> The specification gives an overview. I think we can agree that a
> complete tutorial would not in the scope of an introduction.

I'm not asking you to add any more information than what's there, so
much as to restructure what's there so that it is more understandable
to someone (like me) who doesn't know what any of these things
(masking, clipping, or the CSS features that allow for them) are.

> Do you have specific suggestions? [...] I am very open to specific
> suggestions to improve this section but also don’t see that something
> is missing. (Which could of course be a side effect of editing the spec.)

*sigh* Okay. I guess I can try to rewrite it for you.

>>    8. The use of 'mask source' and 'mask image' in the spec is confusing.
>>       There need to be separate concepts for the mask introduced by the
>>       background-inspired mask properties and by the border-image-inspired
>>       mask properties. Once these concepts are named, defined, and
>>       used consistently, we can have a clearer model for understanding
>>       CSS masking.
>>    9. The definition of 'clipping path' in the Terminology section is
>>       more confusing than helpful. Just <dfn> the first instance of
>>       the term in the Clipping Paths section.
> I’ll do.

#8 is particularly important. I find the spec hard to understand
because of it.

>>   10. # The usage of mask-box-image corresponds to the border-image property
>>       # of CSS Background and Borders [CSS3BG].
>>       Except that the image is used as a mask rather than rendered on
>>       top of the background, right? :) You should say that up front.
> True. It could be stated explicitly.

Then please do that.

>> Trivialities
>> ------------
>>    1. "are applied; these effects" -> use a period, start new sentence
>>    2. "any other CSS effects such as border"... I think "CSS effects"
>>       here is rather undefined. Can we be clearer what makes something
>>       part of this class of effects?
> We could say "graphical effect” but we do not have a definition for
> properties affecting the visual output of an element (which is basically
> the case by all properties directly or indirectly).

I don't know what you're trying to get at, so I don't know what to suggest.

Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2013 17:39:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:17 UTC