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 13:52:31 -0700
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5B853755-FBF7-41B8-A1E1-A4AA2A0B1C07@adobe.com>

On Oct 9, 2013, at 8:19 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 1:09 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?
> 
> As Dirk said, clip-rule is completely unconnected from clip-path.
> They share a name prefix, and both concern clipping in some way, but
> are otherwise completely different.
> 
> 'clip' and 'clip-path' do exactly the same thing.  I thought the plan
> was to just deprecate 'clip' entirely, and just use 'clip-path' for
> clipping.

Yes, confirmed during the meeting today.

Greetings,
Dirk

> 
> ~TJ
> 
Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2013 20:53:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:51:03 UTC