- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 16:24:54 +1100
- To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, SVG public list <www-svg@w3.org>
Dirk Schulze:
> I thought about 'mask-type' again, and it just feels cleaner to move
> 'mask-type' back to the mask shorthand.
I kind of agree that 'mask-type' not being the component of the mask
shorthand that specifies how to interpret the referenced mask is a bit
confusing (since all the other 'mask-*' properties are components of
'mask'). But I think it would be more confusing for 'mask-type' to be
usable on both an element referring to a mask and on a <mask> element
itself, since 'mask-type' really would have a different meaning.
Furthermore, I would add the
> value 'auto' (with initial value 'auto') for various reasons:
Yes, if 'mask-type' now represents the "alpha | luminance" bit of the
<mask-image> and <mask-source> types, then it makes sense for it have an
auto value.
> We can even keep the property on <mask> element, it would just have a
> different meaning ('mask' does not apply to <mask> currently).
>
> The mask property would have the following syntax:
>
> <mask-property> = luminance | alpha | auto
Is that the 'mask' shorthand property? I don't know that it makes sense
to interpret that differently depending on the element it applies to.
But you could change its grammar to allow not specifying the source part
of a <mask-source>, and then you could write
<svg ...>
<mask style="mask: alpha">
</mask>
</svg>
and it would set mask-type:alpha (and the other 'mask-*' properties
which would have no effect on a <mask> element).
I'm wondering whether using 'mask-type' for both things (how to
interpret a referenced mask, and how to interpret the <mask> element it
is on) is not right, and that we should therefore have a different
property to use on <mask> elements.
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 05:25:35 UTC