- From: Shane Stephens <shans@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 03:05:09 +0000
- To: Amelia Bellamy-Royds <amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAGTfzwQek7XEghdh8QQVSHwsD=TH1bGjsA1BQ-Dh2oyTOODOPw@mail.gmail.com>
The -webkit- version frankly doesn't matter. It can continue to support legacy syntax - vendors explicitly accept the risk of specifications changing when they ship prefixed implementations. I suspect we will simply deprecate and remove the -webkit- syntax, though (not sure about Safari). In terms of usage of the -webkit- prefixed and unprefixed versions of clip-path: * -webkit-clip-path has a shade over 1% usage * clip-path has about 0.1% usage (numbers from chromestatus.com) This tells us two things: (1) authors are not generally practicing "future-friendly" syntax. (2) factoring in the putative percentage of cases where this actually matters (self-intersecting polygons specified in -webkit-clip-path) I'm confident suggesting that usage is very tiny indeed - almost all clip paths I've seen in the wild have been simple convex hulls. Note that Chrome can continue to parse, but ignore, fill rules inside polygon() functions specified on -webkit-clip-path if we feel that not doing so would be a breaking change. All this means we basically have zero genuine shipping implementations, so we're fine. Cheers, -Shane On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 1:26 PM Amelia Bellamy-Royds < amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry, one quick clarification: the new Firefox Nightly implementation of > clip-path and CSS shapes is still behind a flag. So not* quite* as close > to being in a stable build as I thought. Should have tested. > > The -webkit- version is out in the wild, though, and content that was > developed in a "future-friendly" manner with unprefixed properties to match > will not be so friendly if the future syntax is changed. > > ABR > > > On 17 February 2016 at 19:13, Amelia Bellamy-Royds < > amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Logically, I like the idea of moving the fill-rule/clip-rule outside of >> the shape function. It keeps separate concepts separate, and provides >> flexibility to use shape functions in different contexts. >> >> However, *polygon() with fill-rule is already shipping* in multiple >> implementations for clip-path (and also shape-outside, though it has no >> effect in that case). >> >> Shapes for clip-path have been working in Chrome (& WebKit?) with >> prefixes for over a year (based on the date when I posted this demo [1]), >> and have just recently shipped, without prefixes, in Firefox Nightly. >> >> So if there is a desire to make a change, it needs to be made soon, >> before these properties are available, unprefixed, in stable builds. And >> that means pulling CSS Shapes 1 back from candidate recommendation status >> to change the function definition [2], and pulling CSS Masking 1, also a CR >> spec, to add the new clip-rule parameter to `clip-path` [3]. >> >> If the rest of you want to champion these changes with the relevant spec >> editors, implementers, and the dev community, I will happily help get the >> word out. But it has to happen fast and furious, with clear justification >> for the change, or you'll have a lot of eager developers annoyed by broken >> content. >> >> [1]: http://codepen.io/AmeliaBR/pen/GgWBOy?editors=0100 >> [2]: https://www.w3.org/TR/css-shapes/#funcdef-polygon >> [3]: https://www.w3.org/TR/css-masking/#the-clip-path >> >>
Received on Thursday, 18 February 2016 03:05:50 UTC