Re: [css-compositing][css-masking] new Editor's draft posted

On May 23, 2013, at 1:07 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Henrik Andersson <henke@henke37.cjb.net> wrote:
> Rik Cabanier skriver:
> >
> > It would not.
> > An 'inverse' mask would invert the pixels of the mask itself, not the
> > content that you mask.
> >
> > Maybe you're thinking of putting the text in the mask. If so, yes, that
> > would make it invert but:
> > - you'd lose the semantics since the text comes from a style. This loses
> > accessibility and copy/paste behavior
> > - you would have to put the text in another fragment or document
> > - you would have to define a way to link to HTML content from a mask.
> > This would be very hard to get consensus on.
> 
> I thought there was an option to use the first result of a normal
> selector as the masking content.
> 
> Not that I know of.
> Dirk, is there such an option? 

There is a selector, but this would just select direct <mask> childs (or <clipPath> childs for 'clip-path') of the target element. This mask could be used to mask the element itself. That is different from masking with text:

    <rect width="200" height="200" style="mask: child;">
        <mask>…</mask>
    </rect>

Masking with a text is possible by referencing a text element in your document with the element() function:

	mask-image: element(#idOfParagraph);

Inverting the pixel mask will be possible with Filter Effects:

	mask-image: filter(image.png, invert(100%));

or

	mask-image: filter(element(#idOfParagraph), invert(100%));

However, I would not recommend that way unless you make sure that this is fully accessible for people with special needs and preferences.

Greetings,
Dirk

Received on Saturday, 25 May 2013 15:30:58 UTC