W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2014

Re: [css-masking] Deprecating 'clip'

From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 17:20:58 +0000
To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Alan Stearns <stearns@adobe.com>
Message-ID: <5846F1BE-B0C6-4A70-976C-4A7712978E45@adobe.com>

On Jan 8, 2014, at 6:25 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:36 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net> wrote:
>> # Note: With this specification the clip property is deprecated.
>> 
>> Deprecation is a normative statement, so shouldn't be in a note.

The sentence is not a note anymore.

>> 
>> # <shape>
>> #
>> # In CSS 2.1, the only valid <shape> value is: rect(<top>, <right>,
>> <bottom>, <left>)
>> 
>> This isn't the CSS2.1 spec.

I changed the sentence. It does not mention CSS2.1 anymore.

>> 
>> Also, <shape> seems overly broad for something that expands only
>> to rect(). I think we should change this type's name here and in
>> CSS2.1 to something else (<clip-rect>?) and allow Basic Shapes
>> to define <shape> for use everywhere else. It's very clumsy for
>> <shape> to only define rectangles defined by two points and
>> <basic-shape> to have much broader expressiveness than <shape>.
> 
> Agreed.  Note that with Bikeshed, you can refer to a function in a
> grammar by using the <<foo()>> shortcut syntax, so there's no need for
> us to define a grammar production at all for just rect().

I removed the definition of <<shape>> and added a definition for <<rect()>>. It is now up to CSS Shapes to pick up the term <<shape>> and Iíll use it in CSS Masking as well.

Note: <shape> is also defined in CSSOM[1] and of course still part of CSS2.1.

Greetings,
Dirk

[1] http://dev.w3.org/csswg/cssom/#parsing-css-values 
> 
> ~TJ
> 
Received on Friday, 10 January 2014 17:21:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:38 UTC