- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 15:19:05 -0700
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 06/26/2013 12:57 PM, Dirk Schulze wrote: > > Thinking about your proposal more, I actually take my response back > and claim the opposite :). What about the following structure: > > mask > +-- mask-layers > | +--mask-layer-image > | +--mask-layer-position > | +--mask-layer-repeat > | etc. > +-- mask-element > +-- mask-box > +--mask-box-source > +--mask-box-slice > +--mask-box-repeat > etc. > > mask-element: <url> [alpha | luminance]? | none > > mask: <mask-element> > > * mask-element is separated of mask-layers. > * mask-layer, mask-box just reference CSS Images > * mask shorthand overrides all properties of mask-layer, mask-element, mask-box > * mask syntax does the same as mask-element > > Would that be reasonable? Yes, it's totally reasonable. However, I am wondering if we can allow a bit more into the shorthand, e.g. mask: <mask-element> | <mask-layer>; with the added provision that a <url> represents <mask-element> and other forms of <image> represent a mask-layer. (I'm not 100% sure that works, but maybe it works.) I still don't understand, btw, why we can't use SVG masks in the mask-layers feature? ~fantasai
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2013 22:19:32 UTC