W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > June 2015

Re: [whatwg] A mask="" advisory flag for <link rel=icon>

From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2015 15:35:12 -0700
Message-id: <96F62332-942B-48A7-B3D6-C807DED84215@apple.com>
To: Benjamin Francis <bfrancis@mozilla.com>
Cc: WHAT Working Group <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>

> On Jun 17, 2015, at 12:42 PM, Benjamin Francis <bfrancis@mozilla.com> wrote:
> 
> On 17 June 2015 at 20:23, Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com> wrote:
> 
>> Using a mask attribute in place of href would solve the compat problem
>> about as well as using rel=“mask-icon”, but it seems kind of weird to me.
>> It doesn’t make sense for an icon link to have both a mask and an href.
> 
> 
> It makes sense to me, an image element can have a src attribute of
> "image.jpg" and have a mask set to "mask.svg" in the mask CSS property [1].
> The equivalents here are the href attribute and the mask attribute, It's
> just that in your case you want to specify a solid colour to mask instead
> of an image, so you would omit the href attribute.

That makes sense in theory, but I don’t think anyone intends to support combining a full-color image with a mask, so this implies a level of generality that the feature won’t actually have. Also, I don’t think there is any use case for supplying both an image and a mask. Since the site icon can itself have an alpha channel, you could always pre-mask it. And it’s not really a consideration that you’d want to post-process an existing image.

Based on that, I think it’s better to use a separate link type rather than to act as if an icon link could have two URLs.

 - Maciej

> 
> That said, I'm not opposed to the creation of a new link relation with
> option A.2 if that's what people would prefer.
> 
> Ben
> 
> 1. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/mask
Received on Wednesday, 17 June 2015 22:35:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:33 UTC