- From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2013 23:40:12 -0700
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Jun 5, 2013, at 2:06 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > 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'. Ok, now I understand you. However, this still leads to the following questions: 1) Has "mask-image: none;" any affect on mask-box-image? Or is it just the mask shorthand that can reset mask-box-image? 2) What about "mask: none, url('image.png')" or even "mask: none, none;" (notice: there are two masking layer defined)? Does this setting for the both examples affect mask-box-image? 3) Can the mask shorthand be restricted to just reset 'mask-box-image' if it is explicitly set to "none"? Greetings, Dirk > >> 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 Thursday, 6 June 2013 06:40:53 UTC