- From: Noam Rosenthal via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2022 05:21:33 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> > I find the idea of using a property called clip-path to create a non clipped element confusing. Why create a situation where a property name including the the word "clip" in it doesn't clip? > > Yeah, but I think that’s a mistake in its original property name. Imagine it was just called `path`. Then authors would not be surprised to learn that the background wasn’t visible outside the path, and might naturally expect `border` to follow the path. The `box-shadow` property would be most convenient for having a shadow that followed the path, even though the shape is probably not a box anymore, and certainly `filter: drop-shadow()` would be expected to follow the shape. And shape-outside/inside should be able to use the same shape without repeating it. I think part of this came from the fact that `border-radius` is part of the `css-background` spec and `clip-path` is part of the `css-masking` spec, though IMO they should have been made consistent, clip-path being a superset of border-radius allowing the same behavior but more expressive paths than just rounded corners. -- GitHub Notification of comment by noamr Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5881#issuecomment-1171947889 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 1 July 2022 05:21:35 UTC