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

On Aug 29, 2012, at 9:11 AM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote:

> 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:
>> 
>> бн
>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> бн
>> 
>>> 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.

It seems like there would be many times when the author would want the mask and the background to line up, and this wouldn't then be possible if background-attachment and/or background-clip were used.

Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2012 16:57:18 UTC