Re: mask-type property

On Sep 20, 2012, at 1:33 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:02 AM, Cameron McCormack <> wrote:
>> We discussed at the F2F this week the 'mask-type' property, and we decided
>> not to allow it to be specified on arbitrary elements to affect how a mask
>> that applies to that element would be interpreted.  (Instead, we have
>> "luminance" and "alpha" keywords in the 'mask' property itself.)  Instead we
>> decided to make 'mask-type' only apply to <mask>.  This is in place of the
>> current maskType="" attribute on <mask>.
>> I was just implementing this, and I wondered whether it really makes sense
>> for it to be a property.  I don't think there are really any use cases for
>> using style sheets to change how a <mask> element is interpreted.  I think
>> therefore we should stay with a plain attribute on <mask>, but perhaps call
>> it something other than maskType="", just to avoid the camel-casing issues
>> that Simon brought up.  I think type="" would work fine.
We decided to follow presentation attributes like 'clip-path'. Therefore there is not camel case and the attribute looks like in this example:

<mask mask-type"alpha">

See webkit implementation for real examples [1].

I don't think that we should introduce a normal, new attribute. The CSS property makes a lot more sense here IMO.

> My justification for it was setting all of the <mask>s in your page to
> be alpha.  Without a property, you have to explicitly add an attribute
> to every one of them.
That is one fantastic example.


> ~TJ


Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 03:50:42 UTC