- From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 21:33:32 -0400
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 03/21/2016 02:02 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 7:08 PM, Xidorn Quan <quanxunzhen@gmail.com> wrote: >> We are currently implementing "-webkit-background-clip: text" [1] for web >> compatibility. This property (with the "text" value) is specced in the >> Compatibility standard [2] at this moment. We found that, making >> "-webkit-background-clip" a separate property instead of an alias of the >> unprefixed "background-clip" adds complexity to implementation (parsing and >> serialization). >> >> Edge has supported "background-clip: text", and I suppose WebKit does, too. >> Blink does not accept "text" for "background-clip", however, if you set >> "-webkit-background-clip: text", the computed value of "background-clip" >> would be "text" as well (which seems to be rather broken somehow). >> >> Given these, it seems we should probably reconsider the decision about this >> value on background-clip [3]. I agree that the design of the value is >> terrible, but as it has been used widely, and all browser vendors have >> implemented it, I think it makes sense to put it into css-backgrounds spec >> as part of background-clip property. > > I agree. fantasai and I discussed this as part of our work on > speccing fill/stroke, and I think we agree (she can correct me if I'm > overstating her position) that background-clip:text is *highly > unfortunate*, but required at this point for compat. Yeah, the WG resolved on adding -webkit-background-clip: text to the fill/stroke spec as an obsolete feature. But we didn't discuss adding the unprefixed version. ~fantasai
Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2016 01:34:07 UTC