On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote: > 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? > What do you mean by "in SVG" and "for HTML"? Currently "mask:url(foo)" is defined by SVG to be a resource reference, not an image reference. We can't really change that or make it behave differently "in HTML". Per the CSS3 Image Values spec, authors could write"mask: image(url(mask1.png)) url(mask2.png)". Then we'd be asking authors to unprefix "-webkit-mask: url(foo)" to "mask:image(url(foo))". Rob -- Jtehsauts tshaei dS,o n" Wohfy Mdaon yhoaus eanuttehrotraiitny eovni le atrhtohu gthot sf oirng iyvoeu rs ihnesa.r"t sS?o Whhei csha iids teoa stiheer :p atroa lsyazye,d 'mYaonu,r "sGients uapr,e tfaokreg iyvoeunr, 'm aotr atnod sgaoy ,h o'mGee.t" uTph eann dt hwea lmka'n? gBoutt uIp waanndt wyeonut thoo mken.o w * *
Received on Tuesday, 16 July 2013 04:57:43 UTC