- From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 20:50:06 -0700
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- CC: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, SVG public list <www-svg@w3.org>
On Sep 20, 2012, at 1:33 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:02 AM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> 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. Dirk > > ~TJ > [1] http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/129018
Received on Thursday, 20 September 2012 03:50:42 UTC