W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2016

Re: [css-backgrounds] Standardize "background-clip: text"

From: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 21:33:32 -0400
To: www-style@w3.org
Message-ID: <56F0A0EC.4080405@inkedblade.net>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:01 UTC