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

Re: [css-masking] 'mask: none' clear all masking operations

From: Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2013 20:33:57 -0700
Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
Message-id: <5A158183-D41E-4962-91ED-683A002F255A@me.com>
To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
On Jul 11, 2013, at 7:46 am, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:

> 4) Add keywords that allow to differ between the masking operations:
> 
> mask: [<mask-element> && layer <mask-layer> && box <mask-box>] | none
> 
> As you see, this could allow 'mask' to set all kind of masking operations, not just <mask-element> and <mask-layer> but also <mask-box>

Can you give some examples of what this would look like?

Does it mean that I would end up with something like:

mask: layer url(mask1.png) url(mask2.png) box url(border-mask.png);

That sprinkling of keywords inside a value seems very unusual and confusing. I didn't like it for gradient functions, and it seems even odder here. And I'm not sure how people would interpret "layer" in this context.

Can't we solve the element vs. layer issue by inventing a new url function, like ref()? In SVG we could say that url() behaves like ref(), but for HTML assume that a url() in the mask shorthand refers to a mask-layer image?

Simon
Received on Tuesday, 16 July 2013 03:34:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:32 UTC