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

Re: [css-masking] reference boxes

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 22:59:15 -0800
Message-ID: <CAGN7qDA9mYjrpbR6U4QRXi_1LC7U=ktpfCXDGLMDhvKPYzAT7A@mail.gmail.com>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 9:37 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>wrote:

> On 12/16/2013 09:23 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote:
>  fantasai wrote:
>> > I think the border-box should be the default here, and you use
>> > 120% etc. to get more than that.
>> Why not have the same as for backgrounds? Is there a reason to have a
>> different one?
> Yes. Usually for clipping, you think about the border area as part
> of the thing you're clipping. This also matches up to Shapes, which
> defaults to the border-box.

That is true. I guess I was more thinking about svg/canvas than CSS.

>  In my mind, clipping and masking have the same initial area as the
>> background.
>> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-backgrounds/#background-clip
> I would like clipping and masking to have the same initial area.
> I'm not really convinced it should match the initial background
> origin.

It would be nice if we could reuse background-clip because otherwise we
need (yet) another CSS property.
Do you think the use-case is strong enough to create another property? As
you mention before, an author can always make it bigger (120%)

 CSS masking and clipping should follow how backgrounds are fragmented
>> when you use 'slice':
>> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-break/#box-splitting
>> I can't see any reason to ever allow 'clone'
> Your logic here works for me.
> ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2013 06:59:44 UTC

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