Re: [css-masking] Dropping mask-attachment, mask-origin and mask-clip

On Aug 29, 2012, at 8:02 AM, Leif Arne Storset wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 02:05:20 +0200, Robert O'Callahan
> <robert@ocallahan.org> wrote:
> 
> …
> 
>> Looking at the top 50 Google hits or so I don't see any sign of people
>> using -webkit-mask-origin or -webkit-mask-clip either.
> 
> …
> 
>> I think the case for dropping mask-attachment is pretty strong, given
>> Webkit doesn't implement it, no-one has presented any use-cases, and
>> background-attachment:fixed is a real pain so mask-attachment:fixed
>> probably would be too.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
>> I think we could also drop mask-origin and mask-clip. OTOH they're not very hard to implement so you could argue we should just keep them for increased consistency with backgrounds. I tend to favour parsimony, so dropping them unless/until there are use-cases, but I wouldn't object to keeping them.
> 
> Would dropping mask-origin and always behaving as if it was "padding-box" mean that the mask would never leave any border and padding visible? Granted, controlling that doesn't sound too useful, and apparently nobody did it. I couldn't get it to work in Chrome, though, so maybe it's not popular only because it's not straightforward to use.
> 
> mask-clip seems to be redundant with actually specifying border/padding or not. I think it can go.

I'm OK dropping mask-attachment and mask-clip, but I think mask-origin is useful and should be preserved. Interesting effects can be obtained by animating background-origin, and preserving this ability for masks is important.

Simon

Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2012 16:12:16 UTC