- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:48:25 -0700
- To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Cc: "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
On Aug 15, 2012, at 7:17 PM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote: > I don't fear that we would break existing content with this change. However, this could be a significant change for the short hand 'mask' and the user experience. To make it compatible to 'background' seems to be less confusing. So at the end it is a consideration between compatibility to 'background' and the sense of certain features. I can understand that you would be in favor for a meaningful feature (I would as well). Please give me some days to find meaningful use cases as well as real usage of these properties. I think it would be more useful, powerful, AND simpler to understand and remember, if we just had the keyword "mask" that we could add to 'background', 'background-image', 'border-image', or 'border-image-source', to clip all element layers above it and all of the element's content and children. I think it would also be nice if box-shadow followed the edge of the 50% opacity point of the masking image (or the intersection of that shape and the element edge, actually, for background images).
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2012 20:49:04 UTC