- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 11:30:44 -0700
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: Zack Weinberg <zweinberg@mozilla.com>, W3C Emailing list for WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>
On Apr 12, 2010, at 10:38 AM, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > But the initial value for 'background-clip' is 'border-box' (sadly), > which means that (unless "the element's box" is always the box > indicated by 'background-clip') you would get a weird clipping shape > if you followed the text quoted above, whenever you didn't change > the initial value of ¡®background-clip¡¯ (it would clip to the padding > box for the flat areas, and then jump to the outside of the curves) > . And we don't want the clipping to work differently for non-zero b > order-radius, because one doesn't expect border-radius to affect lay > out. > > What I'm getting at, is that this is not just an issue for 'border- > radius', it is also for 'background-clip'. We should add something > to ¡®background-clip¡¯ similar to what we are saying about border-radi > us: > > Other effects that clip to the border or padding edge (such as ¡®over > flow¡¯ other than ¡®visible¡¯) also must clip to the box indicated by > 'background-clip'. On the other hand, I don't know how to resove the fact that the initial value of ¡®background-clip¡¯ is 'border-box' and the extisting behavior is to clip 'overflow:<not visible>' to the padding box, while still wanting 'border radius' to clip to the appropriate curve. >
Received on Monday, 12 April 2010 18:31:32 UTC