W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2013

Re: [css-masking] Comments

From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 07:24:18 -0800
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F3496670-854A-4ED3-9A07-47DA76E9FADF@adobe.com>
Hello fantasai,

Thank you very much for taking the time to review CSS Masking again. I am splitting your comments into different topics. This way we can discuss them in different threads.

On Dec 11, 2013, at 11:46 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:

> [Sorry for the late response. I haven't felt like working lately.]
> Non-editorial:
>   1. I'm wondering if the naming of the properties should follow the pattern
>        mask-x shorthand with mask-x-* longhands for layered masks;
>        mask-y shorthand with mask-y-* longhands for box-image masks;
>        mask-type not prefixed by x or y since it's not part of either set;
>        x and y as, preferably, a single word
>      since this would best reflect the relationships among the properties.
>   2. Would like to see 'mask-box-image' shortened to 'mask-box' (or some
>      other short alternative) as was mentioned in this thread:
>        http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Jun/0599.html
>        http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Jun/0634.html
>      because it's imho unnecessarily long.

You are right. We discussed this before. My proposal to your request back then was an infrastructure like this [1]:

+-- mask-layer
|    +--mask-layer-image
|    +--mask-layer-position
|    +--mask-layer-repeat
|    etc.
+-- mask-element (in the discussion we decided that mask-element and mask-layer can be merged again)
+-- mask-box

As you can see, many of the things you asked for are realized in this proposal. However, there have been concerns that you can 
* not unprefix existing comment and make it work [2]
* need to add more shorthands
* authors have to write more code for the common use case (sadly I couldn’t find this minuted, but the main reason why we didn’t change)

Also, as a consequence, the ‘mask’ shorthand would have the same syntax and behavior as ‘mask-layer’ to be consistent with existing SVG content and SVG masking. Only difference: ‘mask’ resets all mask-* properties, ‘mask-layer’ only mask-layer-* properties.


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Jul/0238.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2013Jul/0396.html
Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2013 15:24:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:37 UTC