- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 16:37:01 -0700
- To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 3:19 PM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote: > 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.) Yes, it's possible, though a bit nasty. In the prose, you'd just have to define that for the purposes of this property, <url> isn't part of the <image> type that <'mask-layer'> accepts, so that it has to fall into the <'mask-element'> bucket. > I still don't understand, btw, why we can't use SVG masks in the > mask-layers feature? It's troublesome for implementations if they can't tell at parse-time whether a link is meant to be an internal reference or an image. There are substantially different and separate loading paths for the two possibilities. ~TJ
Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2013 23:37:49 UTC