W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > April 2014

Re: [css-masking] Ic issue 17: mask source and mask image

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 01:39:31 -0700
Message-ID: <53577C43.6080007@inkedblade.net>
To: www-style@w3.org
On 04/11/2014 10:57 PM, Dirk Schulze wrote:
> Hi fantasai,
>
> On Dec 11, 2013, at 6:39 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>    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.
>
> mask source does now only apply to the <mask> element. mask image is
> used for the actual mask “layer”, so the resulting image that is used
> to do the mask operation. I hope this addresses your conveners and I
> can close issue 17[1].

This is better, yes.

There is a similar problem with the term "mask image" being used for
both layer masks and box masks, though. If I click on a property, it
talks about how it affects the "mask image", but it's not clear whether
it's affecting the mask image specified by mask-box or the one in its
corresponding layer. Splitting these two things into two independent
terms would help. Maybe "mask layer" / "mask layer image" for the
first one and "box mask" / "box mask layer" for the second? (CSS3BG
talks about "background images" vs. "border images", so it's clear
there.)

~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2014 08:40:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:21 UTC