- From: Sebastian Zartner <sebastianzartner@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 20:00:41 +0100
- To: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAERejNZdUC_s07TOZeGSx3SNzefv8y-iKOrCFsixKZ6LvJYAow@mail.gmail.com>
On 8 February 2014 06:29, Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Feb 7, 2014, at 9:19 AM, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 1:09 AM, Sebastian Zartner > > <sebastianzartner@gmail.com> wrote: > >> In Mozilla bug 969263[1] the question came up whether to clip gradients, > >> elements and images defined in border-image. The current WD says[2] > this: > >> > >> "A box's backgrounds, but not its border-image, are clipped to the > >> appropriate curve (as determined by ‘background-clip’)." > >> > >> According to David Baron the WG's intent for url() is when defined in > >> border-image it is allowed to *overhang* the box. > >> Though this may not be what the author expects, especially in cases > where > >> gradients or elements are used. See the test case on the report > mentioned > >> above. > >> > >> One idea I can come up with to solve this is to add a new property > >> ‘border-clip’, which accepts the same values as ‘background-clip’ plus > an > >> additional value, which avoids clipping, e.g. ‘none’. > > > > Border-image does specifically overhang the border-radius curve. > > Otherwise, there's no good answer to what the outset values mean. > > Right. 'border-image-offset' of greater than zero is the author saying he > wants that overhang. That couldn't work if corners were clipping (or at > least it would be very strange looking). But we also had good reasons for > not wanting other images to be clipped by rounded corners. I recall there > was significant debate, but consensus was achieved. Would be great if somebody could point me to that debate. > I think we were mostly focused on url() when we decided that. > Obviously. :-) Though there are also use cases for url(), for which people would want clipping. > > While border-image *can* be combined with gradients to make a gradient > > border, it's not the ideal in all cases, as you found. What you'd > > want for that case is to allow <image> types in border-color. > No, allowing <image> in border-color sounds wrong to me. People may want to define the color separately from the image like for background-color vs. background-image. That would be one route. Another would be to add a new value to > 'border-image-offset', called 'none' perhaps, that would be just like zero, > but with the clipping at the rounded corners you desire. Would be useful on > raster images sometimes too, if you wanted to follow the outer edge of the > border and let box-shadow provide the shadow instead of building it into > the image. > I am also not sure whether border-image-offset should be reused for that purpose. The offset is unrelated to clipping. Again, what speaks against adding a new property controlling the clipping of the border? The default value would be to let it overhang the border box. Sebastian
Received on Sunday, 9 February 2014 19:01:28 UTC