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

Re: [css-masking] 'mask: none' clear all masking operations

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 01:17:19 -0500
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBXaoJcn3j2DfexeeY8dYuzg1cnNMytSX5E435g5f4P-Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, "Elika J. Etemad" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
On Jul 16, 2013 12:57 AM, "Robert O'Callahan" <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote:
>> Does it mean that I would end up with something like:
>> mask: layer url(mask1.png) url(mask2.png) box url(border-mask.png);
>> That sprinkling of keywords inside a value seems very unusual and
confusing. I didn't like it for gradient functions, and it seems even odder
here. And I'm not sure how people would interpret "layer" in this context.
>> Can't we solve the element vs. layer issue by inventing a new url
function, like ref()? In SVG we could say that url() behaves like ref(),
but for HTML assume that a url() in the mask shorthand refers to a
mask-layer image?
> What do you mean by "in SVG" and "for HTML"?
> Currently "mask:url(foo)" is defined by SVG to be a resource reference,
not an image reference. We can't really change that or make it behave
differently "in HTML".
> Per the CSS3 Image Values spec, authors could write"mask:
image(url(mask1.png)) url(mask2.png)". Then we'd be asking authors to
unprefix "-webkit-mask: url(foo)" to "mask:image(url(foo))".

Well, to "image('foo')", but yeah.

Received on Tuesday, 16 July 2013 06:17:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:13 UTC