- From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 12:24:12 +0000
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Dec 17, 2013, at 6:37 AM, 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. Short summary of the latest changes regarding reference boxes after the discussion on this thread. * I removed the sentence stating that the mask painting area is limited to the bounding client rect on mask-clip: no-clip * I added the keyword bounding-box to mask-origin. The keyword references the bounding client rect * I changed the definition of bounding client rect to: “”The object bounding box for elements in the http://www.w3.org/2000/svgnamespace and without an associated CSS layout box. The smallest rectangle that contains the border box of the element and the border boxes of all its descendants otherwise. (See getBoundingClientRect [CSSOM-VIEW].)”" * I added an optional <box> value and bounding-box keyword to clip-path so that authors can choose the reference box. The syntax now looks like: <clip-source> | [ <basic-shape> || <box> | bounding-box ] | none * The default reference box for basic shapes on clip-path is border-box * I defined how container breaks affect masking and clipping for each of the source referencing properties. I believe these changes fix: http://dev.w3.org/fxtf/masking/issues-lc-2013.html#issue-4 http://dev.w3.org/fxtf/masking/issues-lc-2013.html#issue-5 http://dev.w3.org/fxtf/masking/issues-lc-2013.html#issue-6 http://dev.w3.org/fxtf/masking/issues-lc-2013.html#issue-26 Greetings, Dirk > >> 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. > >> 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 12:24:58 UTC