- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 17:10:08 -0700
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: Lea Verou <lea@w3.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
On Mar 24, 2013, at 4:39 PM, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > On Sunday 2013-03-24 16:24 -0700, Brad Kemper wrote: >> On Mar 24, 2013, at 2:38 PM, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: >> >>> I don't think there's enough >>> demand to ask that it be put into CSS as its own feature, requiring >>> substantial addition of implementation complexity (e.g., clipping >>> regions of those shapes, etc.). >> >> Do you expect to be implementing CSS Masking using >> border-image-like syntax? (1) If so, isn't the new feature pretty >> much just syntactic sugar for an internally created SVG >> border-image and mask? > > I don't think so, because it creates different author expectations > of performance. If authors use a masking feature, they're more > likely to expect a substantial performance hit than for a border > feature. Then again, maybe authors should expect substantial > performance hits for borders; they're often pretty slow. Speaking for myself as an author, I didn't even know I was supposed to expect a substantial performance hit for masking. I learn something new every day, I guess (2 things for today, now that you've also told me general borders are already sometimes pretty slow). So, is the amount of effort to make a border shapes CSS feature more performant than the SVG masking feature part of the reason why you are reticent?
Received on Monday, 25 March 2013 00:10:37 UTC