W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2013

Re: [css-masking] Shorthanding the clip properties

From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 01:34:41 -0700
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3BB624E2-5739-48C3-8D73-4D0A32AD2406@adobe.com>

> On Oct 9, 2013, at 10:12 AM, "fantasai" <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
> 
> Right now we have three properties:
>   clip-path
>   clip-rule
>   clip
> 
> The weird thing is that 'clip' is not a shorthand for the other two.
> This is mainly due to the legacy weirdness that 'clip' only applies
> to abspos elements. I'm wondering if we can restrict that legacy
> weirdness to just the (already weird) rect() notation, and let the
> 'clip' property be the shorthand that it looks like it ought to be?

We discussed it at the lat F2F. The problem is that authors might be confused that rect() just works on abs positioned elements, while everything else works everywhere else. Sadly we can't change rect() since it might be used on websites (but currently without effect). That is why we resolved to deprecate it.

Even if we make clip a shorthand and accept that rect() has limitations, clip-rule has a different meaning. It just applies to child elements of the <clipPath> element to specify the winding rule. Therefore it will confuse authors more if you add it to the clip property. There is an example in the spec that demonstrates the possible confusion [1].

Greetings,
Dirk 

[1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/FXTF/raw-file/default/masking/index.html#the-clip-rule

> 
> ~fantasai
> 
Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2013 08:35:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:51:02 UTC