- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 13:06:44 -0400
- To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 05/29/2013 09:01 PM, Dirk Schulze wrote: > Hi, > > During the WG meeting today, there was a question if 'mask: none;' can clear all masking operations on an element. > > As an introduction, the CSS Masking spec defines three main properties: mask, mask-box-image and clip-path where some are shorthands for a couple of longhand properties: > > mask > * mask-image, mask-source-type, mask-repeat, mask-position, mask-clip, mask-size > > mask-box-image: > * mask-box-image-source, mask-box-image-slice, mask-box-image-width, mask-box-image-outset, mask-box-image-repeat > > While the 'mask*' properties are similar to the 'background*' properties, > the 'mask-box-image*' properties are similar to the 'border-image*' properties. > > Since 'mask' and 'mask-box-image' are two shorthands, it seems to be impossible > to disable all masking operations with 'mask: none'. That's because of the way the shorthands have been defined. That can be changed to be more like the way 'border' interacts with 'border-image'. > The biggest problem is that the initial value for 'mask-image' is 'none' and > therefore would always disable 'mask-box-image' as well. This is an invalid issue. Shorthands don't have initial values and don't reset anything unless they're explicitly specified. (That declaration then gets expanded into the relevant longhands.) > I added a note to the 'mask' property, that 'mask: none' will just disable > masking by the 'mask*' properties, but not for 'mask-box-image*' properties. > If there are no objections, I will remove the issue 1 I object to removing the issue without thinking through potential solutions and concluding that it's in fact not a good idea to have a master shorthand for masking. ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 5 June 2013 00:50:57 UTC