W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: CSS Masking

From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:47:32 -0700
To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
CC: "robert@ocallahan.org" <robert@ocallahan.org>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
Message-ID: <426654FD-61D4-460E-9A1D-8917B0B85AB1@adobe.com>
Hi Brad,

On Aug 16, 2012, at 1:48 PM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 have a lot of questions to the proposal to understand it.

How would this keyword reference a mask?
How do you define the mask?
How can you use different masks for different components or mask the whole element with all its content and decedents?

> 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).
Can you give a short example how it would look like?

Received on Thursday, 16 August 2012 23:48:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:49:42 UTC