- From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 22:59:15 -0800
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAGN7qDA9mYjrpbR6U4QRXi_1LC7U=ktpfCXDGLMDhvKPYzAT7A@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 9:37 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>wrote: > On 12/16/2013 09:23 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote: > > fantasai wrote: >> > I think the border-box should be the default here, and you use >> > 120% etc. to get more than that. >> >> >> Why not have the same as for backgrounds? Is there a reason to have a >> different one? >> > > Yes. Usually for clipping, you think about the border area as part > of the thing you're clipping. This also matches up to Shapes, which > defaults to the border-box. That is true. I guess I was more thinking about svg/canvas than CSS. > In my mind, clipping and masking have the same initial area as the >> background. >> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-backgrounds/#background-clip >> > > I would like clipping and masking to have the same initial area. > I'm not really convinced it should match the initial background > origin. It would be nice if we could reuse background-clip because otherwise we need (yet) another CSS property. Do you think the use-case is strong enough to create another property? As you mention before, an author can always make it bigger (120%) CSS masking and clipping should follow how backgrounds are fragmented >> when you use 'slice': >> http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-break/#box-splitting >> I can't see any reason to ever allow 'clone' >> > > Your logic here works for me. > > ~fantasai > >
Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2013 06:59:44 UTC